nivel_purga

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 says nothing about whether the value is persisted, whether it applies globally or to the next conversion, whether it is reversible, or who is authorized — significant gaps for a configuration-setting tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the accepted-value mapping comes immediately. It is terse to a fault only in that no verb or context sentence precedes it.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the mutation's effect, and it does not: an agent cannot tell what setting this factor changes, when it takes effect, or what happens to prior values. For a state-changing tool in a family of purge-related siblings, this is a real gap.

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% and the single 'nivel' parameter is bare, so the description must compensate — and it does, listing the three named levels with their numeric factors (0.85, 1.0, 1.25) and noting a raw number is also accepted. That is meaningfully more than the schema provides, though the numeric range or validation bounds are unstated.

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 names the resource ('fator geral de purga') and its accepted values, so an agent can infer this sets a purge level. But it uses no verb and never distinguishes itself from siblings like ajustar_purga, aplicar_purga or ver_purga, leaving the actual action (set? validate? store?) ambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus ajustar_purga, aplicar_purga or ver_purga, and no prerequisites or side-effect context. The value list is usage-adjacent but not routing guidance.

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