Registrar entidade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It adds useful context about tags defining when the orchestrator triggers the entity and about kind 'search' tools being autonomously callable. It does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, permissions, or expected response.

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?

Two sentences, each purposeful: the first states the core operation, and the second explains key configuration semantics. There is no redundancy or padding.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient for correct invocation. It omits how to construct the tools array, what enabled and args mean, whether an existing id is replaced, and what a successful registration returns.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies the role of tags and search-kind tools beyond the schema, but it does not help with undocumented fields such as args, enabled, or description.

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 clearly states the action: 'Adiciona uma entidade à cidade' (adds an entity to the city), with a specific resource and scope. It does not explicitly contrast with update_entity or other siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description provides a clear usage context: use this tool to add an entity to the city. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to update_entity as the alternative for modifying an existing entity, so exclusions and alternative routing are missing.

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