criar_campos_novos_llm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses the normal API, same User-Key, and does not call any LLM. It also describes the input and return structure. However, it omits potential error scenarios or side effects like overwriting existing fields.

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?

The description is concise, uses bullet points for parameters and return, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value. It also links to the complementary tool 'aplicar_campos_novos_html_llm'. Missing details about potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., HTML must already contain <newfield> tags) but overall sufficient.

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?

The schema provides 0% coverage (array of objects with no property definitions), so the description must compensate. It clearly lists the required keys (index, name, type_id, entity_id) for each object in 'novos_campos' and explains the role of 'index' for matching HTML tags.

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 clearly states the tool creates custom fields in Ploomes defined by the agent in HTML, specifying the verb 'criar' and resource 'campos customizados'. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'criar_campos_em_massa_ia' by noting it uses the normal API rather than the IA gateway.

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?

The description explains when to use the tool (after the agent defines fields in HTML) and explicitly contrasts it with 'criar_campos_em_massa_ia', noting it requires no extra AI credentials. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the differentiation provides clear context.

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