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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, and non-readonly, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: partial-update semantics ('Só muda os campos enviados'), which elements persist across modes (initial lead step and final card), and the cross-tool dependency on set_end_cta for the sticky button.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and mode meanings before the persistence note. It is a bit run-on and the trailing editor-location hint ('⚙ → Modo de exibição') is UI trivia that doesn't help an agent invoke the tool, but overall little is wasted.

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 4-param mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies mode semantics, partial-update behavior, preserved elements, and the set_end_cta prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without further lookup.

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 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema: sceneNames become gallery sections, stickyWhatsAppStep borrows the number configured in set_end_cta, and the mode choice changes which UI features exist (no balloons/narration in gallery). Only 'tourId' is left entirely to the schema, which is appropriate.

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 (defines how the tour is displayed) and covers all three configurable facets: mode (guided/gallery), the sticky WhatsApp button, and scene names. The scope sentence 'Só muda os campos enviados' plus 'O passo inicial (lead) e o cartão final continuam nos dois modos' makes clear what this tool does and does not control, distinguishing it from set_end_cta and set_theme.

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 explains what each mode is for (guided tour vs full-screen photo gallery for properties/vehicles/products/catalogs) and states the prerequisite that stickyWhatsAppFromStep only shows when the final WhatsApp CTA is enabled via set_end_cta. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over set_theme or set_end_cta, but the context is clear enough to select it.

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