Criar ou atualizar task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only says 'cria/atualiza' without disclosing idempotency, side effects, permission requirements, or response format. Critical behaviors such as whether id is required for updates, or what happens if the ticket does not exist, are not mentioned.

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?

While the description is a single concise sentence, it is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations. It does not front-load critical usage or parameter details, making it more an under-specification than an efficient, complete summary.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage. The description does not explain how the 'id' field differentiates create vs. update, the meaning of 'status' values, or any required preconditions. An agent cannot reliably call this tool correctly with only the provided information.

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 25% (only ticket_id has a description). The description itself adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. It does not explain the roles of id, title, status, or ticket_id, leaving the agent without essential parameter semantics.

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 verb (cria/atualiza) and resource (task filha de um ticket), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like work_upsert_ticket (which handles tickets, not child tasks) and work_upsert_project. The phrase 'filha de um ticket' clarifies that this is a task nested under a ticket, removing ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of a parent ticket) or conditions for create vs. update. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the schema and sibling names.

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