feegow_create_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool is a write operation ('ESCRITA — altera dados'), specifies the HTTP method (POST), and notes the environment variable requirement. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but the essential behavioral context is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with essential details. The status mapping is embedded compactly, and the write requirement is highlighted. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description lacks information about the tool's output or return value. For a creation endpoint, knowing what is returned (e.g., proposal ID) is important for further actions. Given the complexity (nested objects, multiple required fields) and no output schema, this gap reduces completeness.

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 the description adds value by explaining the status_id mapping (1-5) and the date format (dd-mm-yyyy), which are not in the schema descriptions. This enhances understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool creates a proposal with a list of procedures, using a specific verb ('cria') and resource ('proposta'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like feegow_list_proposals and feegow_change_proposal_status by focusing on creation.

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 provides a prerequisite (FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true) and maps status_id values, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The clear purpose and write indication partially compensate.

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