criar_demanda

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds valuable insights about event suppression for certain project types and offline queue handling, which are not visible elsewhere. However, it lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or error behaviors, leaving some transparency gaps for a mutation tool.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that convey the core function and two key behavioral nuances without extraneous fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes only essential details.

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 (15 parameters, 6 required, no output schema), the description is somewhat sparse. It covers the primary behavior and important edge cases (offline queue, event suppression) but does not explain return values, success/failure states, or how the offline queue integrates with the sibling synchronize tool. While not fatal, it could be more complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a descriptive text. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain parameter interrelationships or provide extra usage hints.

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 ('Registra uma nova demanda') with a specific verb and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'criar_subtarefa' by explicitly scoping to demands in the task management system. It also includes behavioral context (event suppression, offline queue) that goes beyond a simple statement.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'criar_subtarefa' or other creation tools. The description implies its use for creating demands but does not state exclusions, conditions, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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