Clean Bibtex File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behaviors: encoding conversion, month normalization including the 'maio' edge case, and that validation runs 'sem corromper ou perder chaves'. It does not say whether the target file is modified in place or a new file is written, what happens when required fields are missing (abort vs. report), or whether the operation is idempotent.

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-loaded one-line purpose followed by three tight bullets, each earning its place with a concrete rule (including the useful 'maio without period' detail). Minimal waste; only the standard-number citation borders on boilerplate.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema and the transformation contract is fairly well specified, but for a file-mutating tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the write semantics (in-place vs. output_path, overwrite behavior, error handling on validation failure) are missing and would matter to an agent deciding how to call it.

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 description never mentions either parameter. The critical ambiguity — whether bib_path is cleaned in place or output_path must be supplied — is left entirely unexplained, so the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 ('Higieniza e normaliza um arquivo BibTeX') and pins it to a named standard (ABNT NBR 6023:2018), then enumerates three concrete operations. This clearly separates it from single-item tools like format_citation/format_reference and from validate_citations, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus validate_citations or check_structure, no prerequisite (e.g. run before compile_tcc), and no exclusion. The only usage signal is implicit in the enumerated transformations, which an agent must interpret as 'call this when the .bib has encoding/month/field problems'.

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