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

The description explicitly notes '[write, altera dados]', which adds a behavioral signal beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details such as required permissions, side effects, or response behavior, so it provides only modest transparency.

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 efficient sentence with the endpoint and a write tag, containing no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it sacrifices some necessary detail for brevity.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and any expected return or side-effect information, leaving significant gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'body' or 'account'. Only 'leadId' is implied through the endpoint path, leaving the other two parameters semantically undocumented.

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 a specific action, 'Adicionar comentário' (add comment), and includes the endpoint POST /api/v1/leads/{leadId}/notes, making the resource and operation clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling note tools (delete/list/update) by the create/add semantics, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like datacrazy_leads_notes_update or datacrazy_leads_notes_delete. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or exclusions.

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