sei_marcar_nao_lido

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

The description reveals the workaround: 'envia o processo para a própria unidade, o que faz o SEI tratar como novo recebimento (não lido).' This goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by explaining the side effect. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise: two short paragraphs and a parameter detail. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 (workaround) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main behavioral caveat and parameter format. It could mention that the operation is relative to the current unit, but it is already implied.

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?

The description adds meaning to the single parameter 'numero_processo' with an example format (ex: 50300.012639/2023-26). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well, though it could include more format details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Marca um processo como não lido na unidade atual.' It explains the workaround, distinguishing it from other process actions. The verb 'marcar' and resource 'processo' are specific.

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 marking processes as unread, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., other process modification tools). No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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