Criar briefing de imersão

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behavior beyond structure: it returns a markdown briefing, an experience.json spec, and an asset plan with estimated cost, and it states the side effect that providing 'projeto' writes BRIEFING.md, experience.json and plano-de-assets.json to disk. That said, it omits permissions, idempotency, failure modes, and whether the file write is additive or overwriting.

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 verb and resource, and the return/side-effect facts are stated compactly. However, the long arrow chain (enquadramento → técnica → STILLS → FILMS → ...) consumes most of the text with jargon that conveys little to a selecting agent, so it is dense without being efficiently informative.

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 high-complexity tool with 23 params and no output schema, the description does usefully enumerate the three returned artifacts, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. But the 39% of undocumented parameters, the nested objects (paleta, visual, tipografia, itens), and the three enums are left entirely to the schema, so the definition is not complete enough for confident 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?

With 23 parameters at 61% schema description coverage, roughly a third of inputs are undocumented. The description adds essentially no per-parameter meaning — it enumerates pipeline stages rather than explaining inputs like visual, modulos, gerador, or momento. An agent gets no help resolving the enums or nested objects from the prose.

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 and resource ('Reconstrói, para qualquer marca, a espinha dos prompts') and enumerates the pipeline stages it assembles, so the agent can tell it produces a briefing rather than a site. It is clear on what the tool is, but it does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like criar_site or planejar_assets; the only routing hint ('para isso use criar_site') lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

'Para qualquer marca' implies broad applicability but gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites (e.g., that marca/descricao are required), and no exclusion telling the agent to prefer another sibling. The criar_site pointer is buried in the 'projeto' schema field, so the description itself offers no usage guidance.

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