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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it defers execution until explicit confirmation, runs exclusively under the connected Gover account/permissions, forbids passing credentials or auth identity as arguments, and forbids new payment data (portal only). The destructiveHint=true annotation is reconciled by the deferred-confirmation workflow it describes.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then layers workflow and safety constraints in short sentences. Mostly earns its length, though 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API' is filler that conveys nothing actionable.

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 destructive, nested-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation workflow, credential safety, payment-data restriction, and large-result handling. The major gap is the absence of any field-level semantics for the nested form payload.

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% and the single 'form' parameter is a deeply nested object with ~10 undocumented fields (nivel, unidade, departamento, codigoInterno, etc.). The description only says 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API', which punts meaning to an external contract rather than compensating for the coverage gap.

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 ('Incluir departamento') and explicitly characterizes it as a prepare-only action ('Prepara a acao, sem executa-la'). The verb 'incluir' naturally separates it from the sibling modify/read tools (gover_alterar_departamento, gover_consultar_departamento), though those siblings are never named as contrasts.

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 concrete two-phase workflow: show parameters, then call gover_confirmar_operacao only after explicit confirmation. Also routes large results to gover_ler_resultado with the returned resultId. It lacks any 'do not use this when…' exclusions, but the when-and-how guidance is explicit.

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