Importar Arquivo Em Tela

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden — and it does so well, disclosing the two-phase behavior (first call uploads and lets the screen recognize/populate fields without writing; second call with confirmar=true writes to the ERP) and the role of acao_processar as the writing button. It stops short of stating what success/failure looks like or permission requirements.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior, then metadata discovery, then the two-step confirmation flow. Emphasis markers aid scanning. Slightly verbose with parenthetical asides, but every sentence 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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described. The description fully covers the mutation semantics, the discovery prerequisites, and the confirmation workflow needed to call a 7-param write tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that acao_processar 'grava', that acao_reconhecer is the button the screen fires on acceptance, and frames confirmar as the write-enabling switch across the two-call flow. This goes beyond the schema's field-level text.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Sobe um arquivo em QUALQUER tela de importação e, com confirmação, processa') and explicitly generalizes scope ('nada é específico de um fluxo'), differentiating it from per-screen siblings like executar_acao_tela. An agent can tell precisely what it does.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and workflow: discover the screen via listar_telas and buttons via descrever_tela, call first WITHOUT confirmation and show the result, then call again with confirmar=true only after the person confirms. Names the sibling tools and the exact sequencing.

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