Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only mutation, and the description adds transparency about the behavioral outcome: the pasted text becomes an indexed and searchable document. It does not detail duplicate handling, auth requirements, or account scoping, but it meaningfully supplements the structured metadata.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, followed by relevant use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple add-text tool, the description covers purpose and appropriate use cases, but it omits parameter semantics (especially account and title) and provides no information about return values or behavior on duplicate submissions. With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, this leaves meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the 'text' parameter via 'texto colado'. The 'title' and 'account' parameters are completely unexplained, and the required nature of title/text is not mentioned, leaving significant ambiguity for invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Adiciona um texto colado à base') and the result ('vira um documento indexado e buscável'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It implicitly differentiates from kb_ingest_url by focusing on pasted text, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Útil pra notas, trechos, anotações' explicitly identifies common use cases, which helps an agent decide when to use this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives like kb_ingest_url, but it provides clear contextual guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.