salvar_secao_formulario_proposta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that template_id automatically resolves to form_id and mentions ordering behavior. However, it does not discuss side effects (e.g., overwrite vs. update), authentication needs, or what happens if parameters conflict. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 structured with a main sentence and numbered observations. It front-loads the core purpose. While a bit lengthy, every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy in explaining 'template_id resolve o form_id automaticamente' could be trimmed.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage flow, and parameter semantics. It lacks information about return values, error handling, or what happens if template_id is invalid. However, for a tool with 6 optional parameters, it is fairly complete.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning to each: id for update, nome for section name, oculta likely for hidden state, form_id/template_id for creation, ordenacao for position. It explains template_id resolves to form_id. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states the tool creates or updates a section in a proposal/sale/document form template, specifying it is a grouping of simple fields, not a product block. This is clear and specific, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like salvar_secao_campo for other contexts.

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 clearly explains when to use the tool: pass an ID to update, provide template_id or form_id to create. It references sibling tools (buscar_templates_documentos, buscar_formulario_proposta, salvar_campo_formulario_proposta) and explains the ordenacao parameter behavior. This provides excellent usage guidance.

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