renomear_pagina

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: empty titles are refused (input validation) and the previous title is retained in the local log (side effect/reversibility). It omits permissions, whether concurrent renames conflict, and any response/confirmation behavior.

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 actual purpose sentence is buried in the second paragraph behind a long generic workflow preamble that reads as shared boilerplate across sibling tools. The most important clause for tool selection is the last one the agent reads, so the definition is poorly front-loaded.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description does supply purpose, validation, a side-effect note, and read-before-write prerequisites. It still leaves the identifier parameter and the post-rename result undescribed, so it is only adequate, not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description only constrains 'titulo' (must be non-empty, goes in the parameter not the body); 'pagina_id' receives no explanation of format, source, or lookup semantics, leaving half the parameters undocumented everywhere.

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 second paragraph states a specific verb and resource: 'Muda o título da página' (changes the page title), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'editar', which plausibly also mutates a page, so the agent must infer that this tool is the title-only path.

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 preamble gives conditional workflow steps ('read the page before editing if you haven't read it', 'read the spec before writing'), which implies usage context. It never states when to pick this tool over 'editar' or 'criar_pagina', so routing remains inferred rather than explicit.

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