Nota de direção (sentimento → ajuste)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important mutation behavior: aplicar=true alters the spec and regenerates the page. It still omits permissions, reversibility, whether the default is non-destructive, and what the diagnosis output looks like, so disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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?

Two sentences with the action summary front-loaded, but the eight quoted example phrases consume a large share of the text. The examples teach the expected input style, yet the same guidance could be conveyed more compactly.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core mode of operation, key parameters, and targeting. It still leaves the response/diagnosis format, aplicar's default, and the scope of spec mutation unspecified, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 meaningfully explains nota (via example phrases), aplicar (true -> rewrite spec + regenerate), and capitulo (target a single chapter), but says nothing about projeto. Three of four parameters gain context, which lifts it above the raw schema without fully covering the gap.

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 conveys that the tool takes a free-form 'nota' (sentiment/direction), diagnoses it, lists concrete adjustments, and with aplicar=true rewrites the spec and regenerates the page. The action set is identifiable, but the framing ('Dirija com sentimentos') is impressionistic and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings like ajustar_capitulo or ajustar_site, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.

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?

It gives real targeting guidance ('cite o capítulo... para mirar um só') and implies the operate/skip toggle via aplicar=true, and the example phrases model the kind of input expected. However it never states when to prefer this tool over adjuster siblings or the default behavior of aplicar, so usage is only partially specified.

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