Transformar site existente em imersivo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the non-destructive copy semantics, that forms remain functional, and that it emits IMERSAO.md plus a local server and launchers. It also describes the prologue and ancillary features that get injected. It stops short of stating permissions, failure modes, or idempotency behavior.

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 single most important fact (a copy is made, original untouched) and then enumerates injected features and outputs. It is dense and long for a single paragraph, but nearly every clause carries information; the feature list could be trimmed without losing calls.

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 19-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what gets created, that the source is preserved, what artifacts are produced, and one cross-tool dependency. It leaves several parameters and the exact failure/permission behavior unaddressed.

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 53% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not: most of what it says about prologue variants (particles, fragments, push-in, frame scrub) and sobrescrever duplicates the schema's own text. It does add a useful cross-tool note about running extrair_frames with name 'prologo' for frame scrubs, but many parameters (grão, vinheta, fonte_texto, max_paginas, fundo_capitulos) remain 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+resource (creates an immersive COPY of an existing site) and immediately delimits scope: the original is never touched. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling criar_site, which builds a new site, and the emphatic 'CÓPIA' removes any ambiguity about what is produced.

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 makes the usage context clear — it targets an already-built site and accepts a folder, .html file, SPA build, or URL. However, it never explicitly names criar_site as the alternative for greenfield work, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool, so the agent must infer the routing from 'site já feito'.

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