Adicionar módulo de negócio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write ('Acrescenta'), but does not state permission requirements, whether duplicate modules are allowed, how antes_de/depois_de ordering behaves, or what the call returns. The closing note about demo forms is a minor honesty caveat but not the mutation behavior an agent needs.

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 verb and resource are front-loaded, but the middle is a single enormous em-dash parenthetical enumerating every module. That enumeration earns its place as an enum substitute, yet the run-on structure is hard to parse and the trailing sentence about demo forms feels tacked on.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, 5 parameters at 0% coverage, and a nested 'opcoes' object requires more than this. Ordering parameters, permission/side-effect behavior, and opcoes structure are all unaddressed, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It substitutes for a missing enum on 'modulo' by enumerating all valid values and hints at 'opcoes' keys (title, groups, slots, items, tiers, products), which is genuinely useful. However, it leaves 'projeto', 'antes_de', and 'depois_de' entirely unexplained, so 3 of 5 parameters remain 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?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource ('Acrescenta um módulo que o cliente paga') and then enumerates the valid business module types, which concretely scopes what 'módulo' means. It is distinguishable from siblings like adicionar_capitulo or atualizar_motor, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with listar_segmentos_e_modulos. Clear and specific overall.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The reader must infer that this mutates a project by adding a billable module. No sibling (e.g. listar_segmentos_e_modulos to discover modules) is named as a prerequisite step.

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