repintar_ilhas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the output naming pattern <nome>_repintado.3mf, that existing files are never overwritten, and that a preview is returned. It also explains the mutation semantics (whole island top and sides; in multi-color triangles only the island's color region changes). Missing only permission/error behavior.

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-loaded with the action and its result, followed by the change-format spec, then edge-case semantics, then output behavior. Four short units, each carrying information. Slightly dense but no filler.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers output location, non-overwrite safety, return value (preview) and mutation semantics. It still leaves the arquivo, objeto and saida parameters undefined and says nothing about failure modes, which matters for a file-mutating operation.

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. It fully documents mudancas with a concrete example and source of keys, and indirectly explains saida via the default naming pattern and arquivo/objeto via 'do mesmo arquivo e objeto'. However, those three parameters are never explicitly defined, leaving a real gap for a nested-object tool.

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 concrete verb+resource: writes a new 3MF with chosen islands reassigned to another slot and returns a preview. It names the sibling mapa_de_ilhas as the source of island numbers, which helps disambiguate within a crowded family. It does not explicitly contrast with alterar_slot_ace, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 prerequisite workflow: island numbers must come from mapa_de_ilhas for the same file and object. That tells the agent when this tool is callable and what must precede it. No explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing is given, so it is clear context rather than full guidance.

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