Criar nota

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

Annotations already declare the tool is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write operation. The description adds useful context that converter_em_fonte lets chat and Studio use the content, but it does not explain whether conversion creates a new source, links the note, or has side effects.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted wording. The core create operation is front-loaded, followed immediately by the optional conversion behavior.

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 create tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the optional conversion purpose, yet omits duplicate handling, what conversion does to the created note, and how notebook resolution errors behave.

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 only 25%, so the description must help compensate. It names the title and text fields and explains the optional conversion effect, but it does not clarify notebook lookup behavior or the consequences of converter_em_fonte beyond its purpose, leaving some parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a note in a notebook, with title and text. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as notebook_adicionar_fonte, but the resource is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation.

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?

Usage is implied: create a note, optionally converting it into a source for chat and Studio use. However, it does not state when to use this instead of notebook_adicionar_fonte or when conversion should be avoided, so guidance remains implicit.

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