Definir estimativa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('records or updates') but does not elaborate on whether it creates new estimates or overwrites existing ones, how the note parameter is handled, error conditions, or what happens on conflicts. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation support.

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, concise sentence that states the core purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. It earns its place, though it could be more informative without becoming overly long.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is sparse. It omits return values, behavior on update vs. create, parameter usage for 'note', whether the estimate is set absolutely or incrementally, and any prerequisites. An agent would lack critical context needed to call it correctly, especially since none of this is covered by annotations or an output schema.

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 only 33% (only 'hours' has a description). The description adds no additional meaning for 'ticket_id' or 'note'. It does reinforce that hours are in hours, but that is already in the schema. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 states a specific action ('grava ou atualiza' – records or updates) and a clear resource ('a estimativa em horas de um ticket' – the hourly estimate of a ticket). This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishable from siblings like time_log (which likely logs actual time) or time_metrics (which retrieves metrics). However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it doesn't fully differentiate by itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or which sibling to choose instead. The description only says what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and schema alone.

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