feegow_create_benefit_plan

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 states the tool alters data (ESCRITA) and requires a specific environment variable, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or error conditions. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus a parenthetical note. It front-loads the resource and action, and every word is necessary. No wasted text.

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?

Given the tool has a nested required parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential context (write operation, requirement) and the schema covers parameter details. It could include what happens on success, but for a creation tool with simple parameters, this is largely complete.

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 documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb (cria) and resource (plano do cartão de benefícios), and the sibling tools include list and update variants, distinguishing it as the creation endpoint.

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 explicitly notes it is a write operation requiring FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true, providing a prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context of creation vs. listing or updating is implied.

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