Criar apresentacao

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

Annotations already indicate mutating behavior (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that it returns an id, but does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open model), or persistence behavior. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Cria uma apresentacao'), then states the return value and its consumer. There is no extraneous information; every clause 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (id) and workflow linkage. However, it omits potential prerequisites like an open model and error conditions, which would be useful for a mutating tool, though not critical for this simple creation task.

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 100% for both parameters (name and prefix), and they are adequately described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any schema gaps.

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 uses a clear verb ('cria' - creates) and resource ('apresentacao de resultados' - results presentation), and explicitly states the return value (id) and its linkage to solibri_add_slide. This differentiates it from sibling tools like solibri_export_bcf or solibri_read_bcf by framing it as the creation step for a presentation workflow.

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 implies a usage workflow by stating the returned id is 'usado por solibri_add_slide', which suggests this tool is a prerequisite for adding slides. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it, lacking clear exclusions.

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