salvar_registro

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic create/update functionality without details on idempotency, partial vs full updates, side effects, permissions, or response format. This lack of transparency leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 well-structured with emoji-headed sections (🎯 Objetivos, 🔍 Observações), making it easy to parse. It front-loads the core purpose. However, the objectives could be combined into one line, and some observations (e.g., formatting of 'marcadores_ids') could be integrated into parameter descriptions. Overall, it is concise but not maximally efficient.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description lacks crucial information: no explanation of the 'tipo' enum values, no details on what 'descricao' does, no indication of return values. An agent would need additional context to use this tool correctly, leaving it incomplete.

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 low (11%), but the description adds meaning for 'id' (pass for update) and 'marcadores_ids' (must be a list of integers, fetched via other tools). It also implies that other IDs should be obtained from lookup tools. However, many parameters like 'data', 'tipo', 'descricao' lack explanation beyond schema types, so the description only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 it creates and updates interaction records ('Criar um novo registro de interação' and 'Atualizar os dados de um registro de interação existente'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'excluir_registro' (delete) and 'buscar_registros' (search), making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 clear guidance on prerequisites: using 'buscar_clientes' to get contact ID, 'buscar_usuarios' for user IDs, and 'buscar_marcadores' for tag IDs. It also specifies that passing an ID updates an existing record. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for similar actions.

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