Criar site imersivo (do zero)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the site is generated working with fallbacks (photos/procedural), that it auto-switches to real scrub once extrair_frames registers frames, and (via parameter docs) that sobrescrever backs up index.html and preserves css/js. It stops short of stating permissions, failure modes, or what happens when the project folder already exists.

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 concrete deliverables, then the spec-source order, then fallback behavior—a sensible ordering. It is dense but appropriate for a 26-parameter generator with no output schema, and no sentence is pure 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 complex scaffolding tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential agent questions: what gets generated, how inputs are prioritized, and how the fallback/upgrade path works. It omits some detail on the many optional style/briefing parameters, but nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 65%, above the baseline threshold, so the schema already documents most of the 26 parameters. The description adds the important spec-source precedence rule tied to the 'spec' parameter and names extrair_frames, but it does not clarify the many uncovered parameters (cidade, email, telefone, paleta, cursor, etc.), so it stays at the baseline.

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 action ("Gera o projeto completo") and then enumerates the exact artifacts produced: index.html, css/site.css, js/site.js, the imersao/ engine, local server, launchers and README. The scope (full from-scratch scaffold, 'do zero') is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like ajustar_site or transformar_site.

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?

The description explains the spec resolution precedence (spec → briefing fields → experience.json) and notes the dependency on extrair_frames for real scrub, which is useful operational context. However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as criar_briefing or ajustar_site, and gives no exclusions or preconditions, so usage is only implied.

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