salvar_tabela_opcoes

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behaviors for each mode: safe create, force create, rename. It warns that renaming affects all fields using the table. However, it does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate name when garantir_existencia=false (creates duplicate). Still, it is largely transparent.

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 numbered observations, front-loading the main purpose. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value given the complexity. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'Observacoes:' label), but overall 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?

The description explains tool behavior but does not specify return value (e.g., created/updated table object). It also lacks information on error handling or prerequisites (e.g., authentication). Given no output schema and moderate complexity, some completeness gaps remain.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in schema. The description fully explains all three parameters: id (use null or integer for create/rename), nome (required, identifies table), garantir_existencia (boolean controlling duplicate behavior). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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, atualizar ou garantir a existência de uma tabela de opções pré-cadastradas no Ploomes CRM.' This specifies the verb (create, update, ensure) and resource (options table), distinguishing it from sibling tools like buscar_tabelas_opcoes (read) and salvar_opcao_tabela_opcoes (add options).

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 usage scenarios: 1) sem id com garantir_existencia=true (safe mode), 2) sem id com garantir_existencia=false (force create), 3) com id (rename). It references sibling tools: 'Use buscar_tabelas_opcoes para achar o Id' and 'use salvar_opcao_tabela_opcoes ... ou garantir_opcoes_tabela_opcoes ... para popular as opções.' It also warns about renaming affecting existing fields.

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