feegow_entry_product

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the write operation ('ESCRITA — altera dados') and the required environment flag, which is useful. However, it lacks details on side effects, error states, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 sentence that efficiently packs the core purpose, category, data format note, write warning, and endpoint. No wasted words, though slightly more structure could improve readability.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers operation type, requirement, date format, and endpoint. It lacks response or error information, but for a write tool this is acceptable. Overall complete for the complexity level.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description only adds a date format hint, which is already present in some parameter descriptions. Thus, it adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 it registers product entry in stock ('Registra a entrada de produtos no estoque'), uses a clear category [Estoque], and contrasts with sibling tools like feegow_exit_product, which handle exits.

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 mentions a prerequisite (FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true) and date format, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other stock-related siblings (e.g., feegow_exit_product, feegow_movement_product).

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