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

Beyond annotations it discloses that this is a staged/preparatory action, that authentication is implicit via the connected account, that credentials must never be passed, and that payment data belongs only in the portal. It adds real context, though it never clarifies what state the preparation creates or whether it is reversible/timed.

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 is front-loaded and sentences are short and purposeful, but the text reads as largely boilerplate reused across the API's toolset rather than information tailored to baggage saving.

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 non-idempotent, destructive-flagged mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the workflow and auth guidance are solid but the parameter contract is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to know what to place in each field.

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 nested formData/cartaoAncillary structure is undocumented anywhere. The description only says fields 'seguem o contrato da API' (a non-answer) plus two safety warnings about credentials/payment data, which barely compensates for eight opaque parameters.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Salvar selecao de bagagem') and clarifies it is a preparation step that does not execute, which sets it apart from the confirm step it names. It does not, however, contrast itself against closely-named read siblings like gover_listar_bagagens, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: show parameters to the user, then only after explicit confirmation call gover_confirmar_operacao; for large results use gover_ler_resultado; never pass credentials. This is concrete when-to-use and when-to-defer instruction with a named alternative.

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