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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description's '[write, altera dados]' tag and HTTP method add only marginal confirmation of mutation. It does not disclose richer behavioral details such as file size limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on success/failure, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core action, includes the endpoint, and appends a mutation tag. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 create operation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, this description is not sufficient for correct invocation. It omits required field information, request structure, parameter semantics, and response details, leaving critical gaps for an agent trying to call the tool.

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?

The input schema has three string parameters (body, query, account) with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of what these parameters mean or how to format them. The agent cannot infer the request body shape, the meaning of query, or the account field from 'Salvar novo arquivo'.

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 ('Salvar novo arquivo'), a resource ('Documentos e Arquivos'), and the endpoint (POST /arquivos), making it clear this is the create operation for files. It distinguishes itself from list/update siblings reasonably well, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like superlogica_arquivos_put, superlogica_arquivos_list, or superlogica_arquivos_adicionaretiqueta. The word 'novo' implies creation, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion.

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