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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond them: the tool will wake a sleeping car on its own. It still omits what happens if the car is already locked, whether authentication is required, and how long the action takes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the side effect. Nothing is wasted, though it is minimal to the point of under-specifying the operation's inputs.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema, unstructured annotations, and two entirely undocumented parameters. The description covers only the bare action and should say more about scope (which vehicles/account) and the already-locked case.

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% and there are two parameters (account, veiculos) that the description never mentions. 'as portas do carro' gestures at the target vehicle but gives no hint that veiculos is an array, that multiple cars may be addressed, or what account represents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Trava as portas do carro'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling tesla_destravar (unlock). It does not explicitly name siblings, but the lock/unlock pairing is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The clause 'Acorda o carro se precisar' hints that waking is handled internally, but it does not tell the agent when to prefer tesla_travar over tesla_acordar or tesla_destravar.

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