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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the answer is visible to the requester and triggers a notification. It does not cover authorization or reversibility, but the annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so this additional context is valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a targeted alternative reference. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 tool is a mutation with four parameters and no output schema or parameter descriptions. The description provides strong purpose and usage context, but lacks details on optional parameters like files and with_signature, which an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters. Parameter names like 'text', 'files', and 'with_signature' are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description provides no additional meaning, defaults, or guidance on how to specify values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Responde um chamado') and identifies the resource (a ticket). It further distinguishes itself from the sibling tool tiflux_create_internal_communication by stating that the answer is visible to the requester and triggers a notification.

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 this tool versus an alternative: 'Para uma nota que só a equipe vê, use tiflux_create_internal_communication.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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