iniciar_chat_cap1g

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the action opens a visible window (GUI side effect) and is gated on a literal user phrase. However, it never reconciles the benign-sounding 'open window' action with destructiveHint=true, leaving why this is destructive undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, the visibility condition, and the gating condition all earn their place. It is appropriately compact for a two-parameter tool. The ambiguity of 'frase literal' costs a point on clarity, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

This is a state-changing tool in a multi-step workflow (verificar → preparar → iniciar → ler/enviar → encerrar) with two required, undocumented parameters. The description omits workflow prerequisites beyond 'prepared', does not explain whether the prepared state is consumed, and never addresses the destructiveHint annotation. An output schema exists so return values are covered, but workflow integration is thin.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It hints that 'referencia_preparo' maps to the prepared chat and 'confirmacao' maps to the user's literal phrase, which adds some meaning beyond the bare names. But it never states what value confirmacao must hold (exact quote, specific trigger phrase?) or that referencia_preparo should come from preparar_chat_cap1g, leaving both parameters ambiguous.

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 concrete action: opening the prepared chat in a visible window, gated on the user's literal phrase. This differentiates it from siblings like preparar_chat_cap1g (prepares) and verificar_chat_cap1g (checks status). The 'frase literal do usuário' condition is somewhat vague, but the core purpose is clear.

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 two preconditions: the chat must be prepared ('chat preparado') and the user must have uttered a literal phrase, which maps to the required confirmacao parameter. However, it never explicitly names sibling tools or states when not to use this tool, leaving the workflow routing to inference from the sibling list.

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