Planejar placas e filmes

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description usefully adds that it produces only a plan — not an execution — and itemizes the plan's contents including estimated credit cost and follow-up extrair_frames commands. It does not contradict the annotation and adds real context beyond it.

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?

A single dense sentence enumerating contents followed by a short usage sentence; the core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padding. The enumeration is long but load-bearing for a plan generator with no output schema.

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?

Given nine parameters, a nested visual object and no output schema, the description carries the return-content burden well by listing what the plan includes. The remaining gap is deeper per-parameter guidance, but what an agent needs to call it is largely present.

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 33% schema description coverage the description should compensate, and it partly does: it clarifies that visual prompts must be filled in English and explains the gerador values (Higgsfield or other). But it maps mainly to outputs and leaves marca, produto, segmento, qualidade and acento unexplained.

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 ('Gera só o plano de geração para um momento') and enumerates exactly what the plan contains (placa-herói, edits, filmes, prompts, custo). The 'só o plano' qualifier distinguishes it from execution tools, and it names the sibling extrair_frames whose commands it produces.

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 tells the agent to use it with the Higgsfield MCP (gerador 'higgsfield') or any other, giving integration context. However there is no explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison against alternative siblings for planning versus generating.

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