revisar_proposta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'send for review' without detailing the effects on the proposal status, whether it triggers notifications, or if the action is reversible. More behavioral context is needed.

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 very concise (two sentences) with a clear prerequisite breakdown. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly too brief for full clarity. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the action's impact, error conditions, and response. It only covers the prerequisite but not the complete picture.

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 only implicitly mentions the parameter by stating the prerequisite. It does not explain the format, allowed values, or additional constraints of 'id_proposta'. The meaning is partly conveyed but insufficiently.

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 action: 'Enviar uma proposta para revisao' (send a proposal for review) in Ploomes CRM. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like excluir_proposta and salvar_proposta.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: get the proposal ID using buscar_proposta. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it. The guidance is minimal but helpful.

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