salvar_tarefa

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 indicates the tool performs writes (create/update) but does not reveal important nuances: whether partial updates merge or replace fields, if the operation is idempotent, what the return value is, or any authorization requirements. The description is vague on side effects and success/failure conditions.

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, using bullet points for objectives and observations. It front-loads the key actions and prerequisites. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the structure could be improved by separating create and update instructions more clearly. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 (16 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (e.g., the ID of the created/updated task), error handling, or validation rules beyond the required parameters. The observations help with ID retrieval but omit how to handle the response or what fields are mandatory versus optional in an update context.

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 low (31%). The description adds some context by referencing other tools to obtain IDs for contato_id, lembrete_email_id, etc., but does not explain the meaning of each parameter beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not clarify the use of 'sem_horario_definido' or 'conectar_com_google_calendar'. The description does not compensate for the low schema 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 the two main actions: create a new task and update an existing task. It uses specific verbs and resources ('Criar uma nova tarefa', 'Atualizar os dados de uma tarefa existente'). While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like excluir_tarefa or buscar_tarefas, the purpose is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 practical guidance: use buscar_clientes to get contact IDs, buscar_usuarios for user IDs, and buscar_tarefas_extras for email reminder and repetition unit IDs. It also instructs to pass the task ID for updates. This helps the agent prepare the required IDs. However, it does not specify when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for deletion) or mention any prerequisites beyond ID lookup.

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