Comentar numa tarefa

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that the comment 'fica registrado para quem abrir depois' (is recorded for later viewers) and that '@usuario' triggers a notification. This adds behavioral context about persistence and side effects that the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not express. No contradiction with annotations.

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 composed of two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. The second sentence adds useful guidance about @mentions, and the metaphor about returning results to the team is contextually rich though slightly non-essential. Overall it is efficient and well-structured, earning a 4.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, purpose, persistence, and notification behavior. The annotations already cover safety, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it. It could mention return values but that isn't required given the absence of an output 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage: both parameters ('task' with an integer id, 'text' with length constraints and mention capability) are described in the schema. The description only reiterates the '@usuario' mention feature, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema. Hence the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Escreve um comentário na tarefa' — a specific verb ('Escreve') and resource ('tarefa'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like task_create or task_update. It also explains the broader purpose: it's how the agent returns results to the team, which clarifies why this tool exists.

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 phrase 'é como o agente devolve resultado para a equipe' provides a clear usage context: use this to communicate results back to the team. It also mentions that '@usuario' notifies a person, which is a practical guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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