create_prayer_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, persistence, authentication, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap—nothing about what happens on success/failure or any constraints beyond the schema.

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, direct sentence in Portuguese with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation and immediately states the purpose.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created prayer request or an acknowledgment) and provides no behavioral context beyond creation. The schema covers param definitions, but the lack of return value information makes it only partially 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% (both 'request' and 'category' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'adds a new prayer request,' leaving all param semantics to 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 clearly states the action ('Adiciona' = adds) and the resource ('pedido de oração' = prayer request). It is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like list_prayers and answer_prayer. No ambiguity.

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 implies usage (use when you want to create a new prayer request) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like list_prayers or answer_prayer. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so it relies on the tool's name and context.

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