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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds some behavioral context: for duplicate, it creates a copy with '(cópia)'; for publish, it toggles visibility; for send, it skips blocked formulas. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits, and the flattening note is contradictory.

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 structured with bullet points and a flattened action note, but it is verbose and includes redundant information (e.g., listing all actions twice). The last line 'For destructive delete use... [Flattened action: duplicate]' is confusing and could be clearer.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only mentions return values for the save action (id and pdf_url). For duplicate and other actions, return types are omitted. Additionally, error handling, prerequisites, and the effect of bulk operations are not described, leaving significant gaps for agent execution.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It partially does: for save, it explains 'texto' is raw HTML and 'nome' is formula name; for bulk support, it says patient_ids and manipulado_ids are accepted. However, it does not map parameters to the duplicate action specifically, leaving ambiguity about required fields.

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 lists multiple actions (save, send, publish, duplicate) despite the tool name 'write_duplicate' and the note '[Flattened action: duplicate]'. This creates confusion about the tool's primary purpose and fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like webdiet_manipulados_write_save, webdiet_manipulados_write_send, and webdiet_manipulados_write_publish.

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 mentions to use webdiet_manipulados_delete for destructive deletes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the separate write_save, write_send, or write_publish tools. The inclusion of all actions in the description misleads the agent about which tool to select for a given operation.

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