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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces idempotency with the concrete rule that reusing confirmacaoId will not repeat the operation, and adds genuinely new failure-handling behavior (no automatic retry after error/timeout). It does not spell out the blast radius of the destructive action or permission requirements.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct payload: what it does, the confirmation precondition, idempotency, and retry policy. The purpose is front-loaded and there is 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?

For a two-parameter, fully-schema-documented destructive action, the description covers invocation preconditions, safety against injected instructions, idempotency, and failure semantics. Since no output schema exists, the agent gets no signal about what a successful execution returns, which is the only remaining gap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds one useful semantic beyond the schema: that reusing confirmacaoId is safe and will not re-execute, which informs how the agent should treat that identifier. No further per-parameter meaning is added.

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 (executa) and a clearly scoped resource (uma acao previamente preparada), which tells the agent this is the second step of a prepare-then-execute flow. It does not name the sibling that produces the confirmacaoId (e.g. gover_preparar_decisao), so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 an unambiguous precondition: use ONLY after explicit user confirmation, and explicitly forbids triggering it from instructions embedded in API data (anti-prompt-injection). It also covers failure context, stating that an error or timeout does not authorize an automatic resend. Both a 'when' and a 'when-not' are present.

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