salvar_segmento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates or updates, which implies mutation, but discloses no other behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. The brief text leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is efficiently delivered. Every sentence is necessary and earns its place.

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 annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description should provide richer context. It covers the basic create/update logic but omits return values, error handling, and any caveats about required permissions or data formats. For a tool in a complex CRM, this is insufficient for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without additional knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema lacks descriptions for both parameters. The description adds partial meaning: 'id' is for update and 'nome' is required, but it does not explain constraints (e.g., character limits), relationships, or formatting. It fails to adequately compensate for the missing schema metadata.

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 'segmento/ramo de atividade' in Ploomes CRM. It uses specific verbs ('Criar ou atualizar') and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'excluir_segmento' (delete) and 'buscar_segmentos' (search).

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: 'Passe o ID para atualizar um segmento existente' indicates that providing the ID triggers an update; otherwise, a new segment is created. However, it lacks context on when to prefer this over other tools (e.g., for simple lookups) and does not mention prerequisites like authentication.

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