Criar card e registrar horas

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the multi-step side-effect behavior: creating the card via POST, optionally registering hours via PUT qtd_horas, and self-assigning via PATCH. It also states the plain-text constraint for descriptions and the Concluído column fallback — real behavioral context that annotations alone would not provide.

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 four sentences, purpose-first with no marketing filler; the flow line earns its place because it explains ordering that the schema can't. It could trim the bits that repeat schema documentation, but overall it is compact and well-structured.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and light annotations, the description covers purpose, flow, defaults, and input constraints well. But it does not mention the response shape, error behavior, how the agent can confirm success or retrieve the created card's id — a significant gap given the tool has no output schema to fill that in.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline per the rubric is 3, and the description adds some value by sequencing how parameters are used (qtd_horas landed later via PUT, assign-to-me via PATCH) and by aggregating the name-based lookup rule. However, parts of it (plain-text description, Concluído default, names instead of IDs) duplicate what the schema already says.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Cria um card no B-Ticket para registrar o que foi feito e as horas trabalhadas' — verb (cria), resource (card), and clear scope (register work + hours). It clearly distinguishes itself from the read-only siblings (bticket_list_* and bticket_whoami), being the only creation tool in the set.

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 gives concrete usage context: it accepts project/board/column by name ('não precisa do id'), explains the execution flow (POST, optional PUT, PATCH), and specifies the column default when qtd_horas is set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use bticket_list_columns first to find ids'), so it falls short of a full 5.

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