Adicionar capítulo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that insertion triggers page regeneration (a meaningful side effect), but omits whether a chapter can be overwritten, how antes_de/depois_de affect placement conflicts, or any authorization requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and side effect in the first sentence, followed by value enumerations. The type and media lists are dense but each item is a valid input value, so they earn their place rather than being filler.

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 tool taking a nested chapter object with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies useful content vocabulary and a structure reference, but leaves the ordering semantics (antes_de/depois_de) and return/response behavior unaddressed, so it is only partially 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 coverage is only 25% (just the nested capitulo object), and the description compensates well for that object by enumerating valid 'type' values and cinema media options plus the groups/meters/callouts structure. It says nothing, however, about projeto, antes_de, or depois_de, leaving the ordering parameters entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Insere um capítulo no spec' (inserts a chapter into the spec), and discloses the side effect 'regera a página'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ajustar_capitulo (adjust) and adicionar_modulo (add module), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reference hint 'Use um momento (detalhar_momento) como referência da estrutura' points the agent at the right companion tool for building a chapter body. However, there is no guidance on when to add versus adjust an existing chapter, nor prerequisites or failure conditions.

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