provision_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the super_admin authorization requirement, which is valuable, but says nothing about side effects, whether provisioning also creates the initial admin credentials passed in, or reversibility.

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 short sentences with the purpose and the key prerequisite front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is efficient though arguably too terse for a multi-parameter mutating tool.

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 heavy provisioning operation with five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits what infrastructure is created, what the initial admin is used for, and any side effects. Beyond the super_admin note, an agent is left with significant unknowns.

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 100%, so every parameter (nome, slug, adminNome, adminEmail, adminSenha) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Provisionar projeto completo com infraestrutura' tells the agent this creates a full project including its infrastructure. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'create_project', leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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 prerequisite 'Requer super_admin' gives a useful precondition for use, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over 'create_project' or what happens after provisioning. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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