Creates a new 3MF project copy with the purge table recalculated for its colors using saved calibration data; the original file is never overwritten.
Grava uma cópia do projeto (_purga.3mf) com a tabela de purga recalculada para as cores dele, usando a calibração salva. Nunca sobrescreve.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| saida | No | ||
| arquivo | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important safety trait — 'Nunca sobrescreve' (never overwrites) — and that a copy is produced rather than the original mutated. However, it omits where the copy lands, what happens if no saved calibration exists, and what the call returns.
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 core action and the key non-destructive guarantee front-loaded; zero filler. The filename convention is embedded efficiently rather than spelled out at length.
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?
No output schema and no annotations mean the description has to cover the return value and the write target, and it only half does — it gives the output filename pattern but not the directory, return payload, or failure modes. Adequate for the main behavior, incomplete around parameters and results.
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 compensate, and it does not: neither 'arquivo' (the required input) nor 'saida' (the optional second parameter) is explained. The filename pattern hints at a default output name but does not clarify the role of 'saida' or its relationship to '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?
States a specific verb+resource: writes a copy of the project with the purge table recalculated for its colors, and even names the output file pattern (<nome>_purga.3mf). It is clearly a write/produce step distinct from viewing siblings like ver_purga or ajustar_purga, though it never names an alternative 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 implied rather than stated: 'usando a calibração salva' suggests it is the step that follows calibration (aprender_purga/ajustar_purga), but no when-to-use, preconditions, or alternative is spelled out. An agent must infer the workflow position from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.