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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the two-phase prepare/confirm flow, that it does not execute on its own, that auth uses only the connected account, that credentials must never be passed as arguments, and that large results come back via gover_ler_resultado. It does not describe rate limits or the concrete side effects of the eventual change.

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?

Purpose and the prepare-then-confirm rule are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence (auth, result handling, payment data) carries distinct information. Slightly long due to stacked disclaimers, but nothing is pure 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?

Covers workflow, auth, result handling, and a payment-data restriction well for a prep/mutation tool, and no output schema exists to explain. However, with a complex undocumented nested schema it fails to give any field-level context, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is a deeply nested "form" object with many inner fields (opcaoId, formData.ativo/nivel/unidade, clienteId, etc.). The description only says fields "seguem o contrato da API," which adds no meaning for any parameter, leaving the agent with no field-level guidance.

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+resource ("Alterar departamento") and clarifies it is a preparation step that does not execute, which separates it cleanly from the confirmar_operacao sibling. It does not explicitly contrast with the other alterar_* or incluir_departamento tools, but the resource name makes the target 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?

Gives a clear workflow: prepare now, show parameters to the user, and only call gover_confirmar_operacao after explicit confirmation. It names the follow-up tool and states a precondition (explicit confirmation), though it gives no explicit when-not guidance versus sibling alter/incluir department tools.

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