agenda_inserir_agendamento

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states insertion without mentioning any behavioral traits such as conflict checking, authorization needs, idempotency, or side effects. This leaves the agent uninformed about important runtime 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 description is a single short sentence (5 words). While not verbose, it is underspecified and could be restructured to front-load key constraints or behavior. It earns its place but lacks informative value.

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?

With nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify return values, error conditions, or side effects. The agent lacks sufficient context to safely invoke this tool without additional documentation.

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 100% (all nine parameters described in JSON Schema). The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline is 3 per rubric because the schema already covers the parameters adequately.

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 'Insere um novo agendamento na agenda' clearly indicates the tool creates an appointment, but it essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful specification. It vaguely distinguishes from siblings (alter, delete, list) but does not specify the scope or uniqueness.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agenda_alterar_agendamento, agenda_desmarcar_agendamento). No prerequisites, restrictions, or comparison with sibling tools are provided.

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