garantir_opcoes_tabela_opcoes

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

The description discloses that the tool creates only non-existing options (idempotent). No annotations exist, but it misses details like side effects, error handling, or permissions. The core behavior is stated.

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 short (two lines plus bullet points) and to the point. It could be more structured but avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and only a brief note about checklists, the description leaves gaps: what is a table ID? How are options formatted? Is there any limit? Incomplete for a mutating tool.

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 description provides no explanation of 'tabela_id' or 'opcoes' beyond their types. It adds no meaning to the parameters.

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 states the tool ensures a table has desired options, creating only those that don't exist. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'buscar_opcoes_tabela_opcoes' and 'salvar_opcao_tabela_opcoes'. The verb 'garantir' is a bit vague but context clarifies.

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 notes indicate it's useful for pre-registered options in checklists and only creates missing options. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons to siblings like 'salvar_opcao_tabela_opcoes' for single option addition.

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