Criar esqueleto de projeto

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a creation (mutating) and that it is 'subject to approval', which is helpful. However, it does not explain the confirm_token parameter, what happens if files already exist, whether the operation is overwrite-safe, or what the success response looks like. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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?

The description is compact (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It includes the essential format example and the approval caveat without unnecessary filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it omits some critical details that would make it more useful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the approval workflow, the purpose of confirm_token, potential overwrite behavior, or return values. An agent cannot fully understand how to call this tool correctly or what to expect, especially since the absence of an output schema places more burden on the description.

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 coverage is 67% (name and files have descriptions, confirm_token does not). The description repeats the files format ('files = { 'caminho': 'conteúdo' }') which adds little beyond the schema's existing description ('Mapa caminho→conteúdo'). It does not explain the confirm_token at all, failing to compensate for the uncovered parameter. The value added over the schema is minimal.

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 a specific verb ('Cria' – creates), a resource ('pasta de projeto' – project folder), and a distinctive scope ('múltiplos arquivos de uma vez' – multiple files at once). This differentiates it from siblings like make_dir (single folder) and write_file (single file) without needing their schemas.

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 implies usage for batch project scaffolding ('multiple files at once') and mentions an approval requirement, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like make_dir or write_file, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool. The usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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