Ajustar, mover ou remover capítulo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the page is regenerated, that index.html gets an automatic backup, and precise deep-merge semantics (null deletes a key, lists are replaced). It does not disclose the destructive nature of 'remover' or move ordering behavior, but the merge rules and backup are genuinely useful behavioral detail.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the merge rules and illustrative examples. The examples are dense but earn their place by demonstrating nested-object mutations that the schema cannot express. No filler sentences.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers editing/regeneration/merge well but omits the semantics of move (mover_antes_de/mover_depois_de), remove (remover), and duplicate (duplicar_como) operations that are central to the tool's stated purpose. Fill-in-the-gaps guidance is partial.

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 29%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the most complex parameter, 'alteracoes', with concrete examples of deep-merge behavior. However, projeto, remover, duplicar_como, mover_antes_de and mover_depois_de receive no explanation in the description beyond the title's move/remove hint.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it edits a chapter in experience.json and regenerates the page. Combined with the title (adjust/move/remove), an agent understands the core operation. It is distinguishable from adicionar_capitulo, though that contrast is not made explicit.

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 guidance. The title hints at move/remove but the description never states the conditions under which an agent should choose this tool over adicionar_capitulo or ajustar_site. The reader must infer usage from the operation name.

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