cadastrar_artigo

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals upsert behavior (cadastra ou atualiza) but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error handling. Minimal behavioral info beyond the obvious write operation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by use explanation and sequence instruction. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 16 parameters (6 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains the tool's role in the workflow but omits explanations for required parameters like 'id' and 'tipo', and does not cover error cases or behaviors.

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 69%, leaving several parameters with no description in schema. The tool description only mentions a few fields (autores, título, ano, revista, DOI) without adding meaning to the undocumented ones. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it registers or updates article metadata, listing specific fields (authors, title, year, journal, DOI). It distinguishes from siblings like listar_artigos by positioning as a metadata registration tool to be used after PDF placement.

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?

Provides clear context: use after placing PDF in referencias/ folder and for recording metadata used in ABNT citations. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like extrair_pdf for metadata extraction.

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