salvar_opcao_tabela

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

The description implies mutation ('Criar ou atualizar') but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, error handling (e.g., what if ID does not exist), or idempotency guarantees. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does not fully disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by two bullet-pointed notes. No unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the return value (e.g., does it return the saved option?), error conditions (e.g., missing table), or any constraints. For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, more detail would be helpful.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for 'id' (used for updates) and 'ordem' (defines position). However, it does not describe 'tabela_id' or 'nome', though 'nome' is self-explanatory. Overall, the description adds some value but not for all 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Criar ou atualizar uma opcao em uma tabela de opcoes no Ploomes CRM.' It specifies the action (create/update) and the resource (option in an options table). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'salvar_tabela_opcoes' or 'garantir_opcoes_tabela_opcoes', which have similar purposes.

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 provide practical guidance: 'Passe o ID para atualizar uma opcao existente.' and 'A ordem define a posicao da opcao na lista.' This tells the agent when to use create vs update and how to control ordering. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.

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