Amizades

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

With annotations present the bar is lower, and the description adds real context: what 'accept' does (accepts a received request), what 'remove' does (removes friendship OR declines/cancels a pending request), and a mode restriction ('So em modo user'). It does not explain rate limits or return behavior, but the effect of each mutating action is disclosed.

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?

Dense but well organized, one clause per action with the default behavior front-loaded. Every clause earns its place; no redundant filler.

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 no-output-schema tool with three actions and four params, the description covers all actions, the default, and the mode constraint. A note on what the raw JSON return contains is the only meaningful gap, but the action coverage is sufficient to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents type/action/format/userId including the userId pattern. The description reinforces userId's role in accept/remove and implies the type filter via 'recebidos/enviados/bloqueados', but adds nothing beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3.

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 specific verbs and resources for each mode: 'list' returns friends/pending requests/blocked, 'accept' accepts a received request, 'remove' removes a friendship or declines/cancels a request. This is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself from the surrounding DM/message/channel tools.

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 maps each action to its outcome and flags the default ('list (padrao)'), plus a precondition ('So em modo user'). This gives clear context for when each action applies, but it never names alternatives or states when NOT to use the tool.

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