salvar_departamento

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the core behavior (create/update) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, error conditions, or what happens if the ID does not exist. The behavior is clear but minimally transparent.

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 two short sentences, directly to the point, with no extraneous information. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and usage distinction. It could mention return values or potential effects, but it is mostly complete for a basic upsert 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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by clarifying that 'id' is for updates and 'nome' is always required. However, it does not explain the exact meaning of 'nome' (though it is obvious from the name) or any constraints beyond the schema.

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 or updates a department in Ploomes CRM. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'buscar_departamentos' (search) and 'excluir_departamento' (delete) by being the only upsert tool for departments.

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 explicit guidance: pass an ID to update an existing department, implying omitting ID creates a new one. It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the implicit context.

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