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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, so the description adds the HTTP endpoint and the role of data. It does not describe the response, error behavior, or side effects beyond creation.

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 one short sentence, front-loads the purpose, includes the endpoint, and adds the key parameter hint without unnecessary words. Each phrase carries meaning.

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?

The description covers the operation, endpoint, and role of the data parameter, which is acceptable for a simple wrapper. However, it depends on external knowledge of the official API and does not explain what a valid payload should contain or what happens after creation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0% and the only parameter is a free-form object. The phrase 'data = corpo conforme a API oficial' gives some context that data should be the request body, but it does not compensate for the lack of required fields or payload structure.

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 that this tool creates a Tarefa (task/commitment/deadline/provision) via POST /tarefa. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint reinforces the operation, distinguishing it from sibling query and update 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?

Usage is implied by 'Cria' and the Tarefa resource, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as projuris_consulta_tarefa or other create tools. There are no exclusions or explicit alternativeness provided.

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