preparar_chat_cap1g

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive safety profile. The description adds that it validates inputs and does not start the chat, but it does not explain what 'prepara' means in terms of state or prerequisites. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 concise sentence contains the core purpose and the key non-start boundary, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple three-string-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, this is serviceable but thin: it leaves the meaning of 'preparar' ambiguous and does not state that the prepared chat should later be followed by 'iniciar_chat_cap1g'. The output schema covers return values, but workflow context 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, but it only loosely maps parameters to 'identificação' (nome/email) and 'mensagem inicial'. It does not define validation rules, formats, or relationships among the three required parameters.

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 names the resource ('chat') and uses specific verbs: it validates 'identificação' and 'mensagem inicial' and prepares the chat. The clause 'sem iniciá-lo' explicitly separates this tool from the sibling 'iniciar_chat_cap1g'.

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 establishes clear context: this is a pre-start preparation step, and the explicit 'sem iniciá-lo' tells the agent not to expect the chat to be started. It does not name sibling tools or spell out a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule, so it stops short of a 5.

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