alterar_slot_ace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('Atualiza') and adds one validation rule (tipo must exist in some molde slot), but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, what happens to unspecified fields, or the response.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and parameter notes following. No wasted text, though the trailing parenthetical example is minimal.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 undocumented-in-schema parameters needs more: return behavior, effect on unspecified fields, and meaning of slot/nome are all missing.

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% with 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents the hex format for cor and the existence constraint for tipo, but leaves nome and the required slot parameter completely unexplained.

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 (atualiza) and resource (um slot do ACE) with the triggering context (após troca de carretel). It is distinguishable from siblings like ver_ace and definir_molde_ace, though it never explicitly contrasts with 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition: after the user swaps the spool. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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