confirmar_acao

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is known. The description adds real workflow context beyond them: execution must follow a separate confirmation message and the response must be passed verbatim. It could still note irreversibility or what happens on a failed execution, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, what to pass, and when to abstain. The gating condition is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations that already signal destructiveness, the description covers the essential precondition and input discipline. It omits what a successful or failed execution returns, which an agent in a confirmation flow would benefit from knowing.

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 100% and both properties already carry descriptions ('Id devolvido por propor_*' and 'palavra por palavra. Nao interprete'). The description restates the same instruction to pass the id and the literal reply, adding emphasis but no new semantics, 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 ('Executa uma proposta') and pins the resource to the id returned by propor_*, which cleanly separates it from the propose_* siblings. An agent can tell it is the execution step of a two-phase flow without reading either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (client confirmed in another message) and an explicit exclusion with the alternative action ('Se ele nao confirmou claramente, nao chame esta tool: pergunte de novo'). The when/when-not pair is fully specified.

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