salvar_etapa_venda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool creates or updates a stage, but does not mention whether it is destructive, idempotent, requires authentication, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity, leaving important aspects unexplained.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or parameter semantics. For a tool with 3 parameters and moderate complexity, more context is needed.

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 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided. The description adds minimal meaning: it explains that 'id' is used for updates, but does not explain 'nome' (name) or 'ordem' (order). For a string parameter and an integer parameter, the description should clarify expected format or constraints.

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 verb 'criar ou atualizar' (create or update) and the resource 'etapa de pedido/venda' (sale stage). It mentions that passing an ID updates an existing stage, which adds nuance. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_etapas_venda' or 'excluir_etapa_venda', so it lacks full distinctiveness.

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 hint about when to use the tool: 'Passe o ID para atualizar uma etapa existente' implies that without an ID it creates. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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