ajustar_purga

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key trait: it stores calibration persistently ("guarda para as próximas conversões") and requires aplicar_purga to affect an existing file. It does not describe return values, whether the calibration is reversible, or any permission constraints.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then parameter semantics, then the follow-up caveat. Sentences are dense and useful; minor slack in the parenthetical color clarification but nothing wasted.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameter meanings, and the critical apply-after caveat. Only missing pieces are the response/return behavior and failure modes.

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%, so the description must fully compensate and does: it explains de accepts an ACE slot number ("2") or hex color (#RRGGBB), defines para as the incoming/blotched color, and specifies mudanca values ("mais" +20%, "menos" -20%, or a factor like "1.5"). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Calibra a purga de uma troca de cor") and adds persistence semantics ("guarda para as próximas conversões"). It also names the sibling aplicar_purga as the follow-up step, so an agent can distinguish it from ver_purga/nivel_purga/ajustar_purga without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "Para valer num arquivo já convertido, chame aplicar_purga depois," which clarifies this tool only calibrates/stores, not applies. It gives clear usage context but no explicit when-not condition or full comparison against ver_purga/nivel_purga.

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