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

Annotations already communicate that this is not a read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the note is visible only to the team and the requester is not notified or able to see it. It does not describe return/confirmation behavior, but this is not critical for a simple create-style tool.

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 three concise sentences, each with a clear purpose: state the action, define the visibility scope, and mention the alternative tool. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 small create-operation with a clear schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the note's audience, visibility behavior, and the correct sibling alternative. The `files` parameter is not discussed, but its shape is already available in the input schema.

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 for missing parameter explanations, but it does not explicitly describe `text`, `ticket_number`, or `files`. 'Nota' and 'num chamado' indirectly hint at `text` and `ticket_number`, but `files` is not semantically explained at all.

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 Portuguese description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cria uma comunicação interna num chamado' — a team-only internal note on a ticket. It also differentiates from siblings by clarifying that the requester neither sees nor receives it.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool vs. an alternative: 'Para falar com o solicitante use tiflux_create_ticket_answer.' This is a direct when/when-not decision rule.

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