Executar Operacao Winthor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side-effect nature (writes need confirmation) and the user context, which is critical for an execution tool. It does not mention errors or edge cases, but the presence of an output schema covers return values, so this is acceptable.

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, with the purpose in the first sentence and usage conditions in the second paragraph. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. Could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient and readable.

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 complexity (executing operations with side effects) and the lack of annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: when to confirm, what to show the user, and the user context. The output schema handles return value details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states (e.g., confirmar is required for writes). It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Chama uma operação do WinThor Anywhere') and the resource (WinThor Anywhere operation), with the additional context of using the person's user. It distinguishes from siblings by implying execution rather than listing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides explicit conditions: reads run directly, writes require confirmar=true and admin-enabled writing, and instructs to show the person what will happen before a write. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools like listar_operacoes_winthor (but that's implied by the schema).

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