sftp_cadastrar

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false pair, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: it is a blocking human-in-the-loop UI window, it waits for the user to save or cancel, and the password is never echoed back in the response. It stops short of saying what the tool returns on cancel or whether registration is persisted immediately.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding distinct information, with the core action front-loaded. Slight redundancy between the opening action statement and the save/cancel sentence, but nothing is padding.

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 two-optional-parameter UI tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the agent needs: interaction model, blocking behavior, parameter intent, and one return-value fact (no password). The remaining gap is what the response looks like on save versus cancel.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: both parameters are explained as pre-filled values for user verification, with concrete examples ('cbm-dev' for perfil, the client's repository folder for repositorio). It doesn't address the empty-string defaults or whether passing a value overrides the pre-fill.

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: it opens an on-screen window to register an environment (URL, user, password, environment). That interactive framing cleanly separates it from the file-operation siblings (sftp_ler, sftp_enviar, sftp_baixar) and from sftp_perfis, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for adding a new SFTP environment, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' clause and no routing to alternatives such as sftp_vincular_repositorio or sftp_perfis. The note that perfil/repositorio arrive pre-filled hints at the intended call context without stating it.

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