guard_create_banner

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

Annotations cover mutation/openWorld/idempotency, but the description adds the concrete dedup rule ('se já existe um banner... devolve o mesmo, sem duplicar'), the data-minimization guarantee ('Não envia código: só a origem do site, as finalidades e os nomes dos serviços'), and the accountless/claimable status. That is real behavior beyond the hints, though error and rate-limit behavior is unstated.

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 what it creates and what it returns, then layers on sourcing, dedup, and data handling. Each sentence carries information, though it is dense and slightly repetitive around purposes derivation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully names the returned banner_id and where to use it, and covers auth (no account), dedup, and transmitted data. Missing only locale handling, permissions nuances, and failure modes for a mutation tool.

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 only 20% schema description coverage, the description does the heavy lifting: it explains that purposes are derived from detected trackers via project_path or files, or supplied directly via purposes, and that raw code is not sent. It omits locale (the default pt-BR) and adds little on site_url beyond the schema's own 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cria o banner de cookies do HOC Guard para um site'), the no-account condition, and the return value (banner_id). It names the siblings that consume the result (guard_generate_cookie_banner, guard_make_compliant), so an agent can distinguish this creation step from downstream steps.

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?

Clearly frames the scenario (create a banner without an account) and explains the follow-on use of the returned id, plus that the banner can be claimed after signup. It does not explicitly compare conditions under which an agent should pick this versus guard_generate_cookie_banner/guard_make_compliant, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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