garantir_campo_dinamico_checklist

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 key behaviors: idempotency (reuse existing field), conditional creation of table/options for tipo_id=7, and return of field_id and field_key. This adds useful context beyond what annotations could provide, though it omits permissions or rate limits.

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 (3 lines in observations) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The bullet-point format enhances readability. It earns its place without unnecessary verbosity, though slightly more structure (e.g., parameter details) would improve 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?

The description explains return values (field_id, field_key) in lieu of an output schema, and addresses the key scenario for tipo_id=7. However, it lacks details on validation, prerequisites (e.g., permissions), or how parameters like 'obrigatorio' affect behavior. Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only adds value for 'tipo_id=7' (explaining pre-creation of table/options), and mentions required parameters (nome, entidade_id, tipo_id). However, it fails to explain optional parameters like 'obrigatorio', 'tabela_opcoes', 'tabela_opcoes_id', and their relationships, leaving significant ambiguity.

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's purpose: ensuring a dynamic field ready for use in a checklist in Ploomes CRM. It uses a specific verb ('garantir') and resource ('campo dinâmico para checklist'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by targeting checklist-specific fields, as evidenced by the observations about reuse and type_id=7 handling.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'salvar_campo' or 'buscar_campo_dinamico_existente'. It mentions reuse if the field already exists, but lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use information. The context signals show many sibling tools with similar field operations, making this gap significant.

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