sapiens_quote_pop

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses session-token authentication, default draft status, admin review location, and that publishNow=true publishes directly. For a write tool with readOnlyHint=false, this is meaningful behavioral context. It does not describe failure modes or response behavior, but it adds several non-obvious workflow facts.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph with no filler or repeated promotional language. It front-loads the three actions and their conditions before the default-status note. The run-on structure makes it slightly harder to scan, but every clause earns its place.

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 tool with 18 parameters, nested conditional objects, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers the central branching logic and defaults well. However, it does not describe the expected response/return shape or error behavior, which matters more because no output schema exists, and several secondary parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 61% schema coverage, the description adds a useful action-to-object mapping and names the key fields inside quote, popReference, and educativeReference. It also explains the publishNow default. One caveat: saying publish_quote requires a 'complete' quote object (text/author/sourceWork/license/referenceImage/flowImage) is stronger than the schema's required ['text','author'], which could mislead an agent about validation strictness.

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 states a specific action ('Publica curado da Coluna Sapiens/Repertório/Educativo') and enumerates three concrete publishing modes with their target columns. It is internally discriminating and explains what the tool creates, but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with the large sapiens_* sibling set, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear per-action context: when to use publish_quote, publish_pop, or publish_educativo, and which companion object each requires. It also clarifies the draft-by-default workflow and publishNow bypass. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance outside these internal modes.

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