fluig_card_save

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that this is a write ('⚠️ ESCRITA'), that it is headless, and which actions are destructive. However, it says nothing about permission/auth requirements, whether deletes cascade to child rows, or whether a destructive action is recoverable — significant gaps for a multi-action mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the write/destructiveness warning, then the action list, then the prerequisite hint. There is zero filler and the most safety-critical information appears first.

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 7-parameter, destructive, multi-action write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential warning and the field-name prerequisite, and the schema fills in most parameter detail. Still missing is any characterization of the outcome (what a successful save returns, whether deletes remove child lines, error behavior), which an agent invoking a destructive tool would want.

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 86%, so the schema already documents env, dados, rowId, cardId, and confirm in detail; the baseline of 3 applies. The description's action enumeration simply repeats the acao enum without explaining the difference between criarLinha, editarLinha, and apagarLinha, and its only genuine parameter-adjacent hint is the fluig_form_fields pointer for populating dados.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource in caps plus the mutation class: 'Cria/altera/apaga registro de formulário e LINHAS FILHAS'. It then enumerates the six supported actions and names the sibling tool that must be consulted first (fluig_form_fields), so an agent can identify both the tool's scope and its companion step without opening the schema.

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?

It states a concrete prerequisite ('Use fluig_form_fields antes para acertar os nomes de campo') and flags which actions are destructive (apagar/apagarLinha), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of pointing to alternatives (e.g., fluig_form_save or the read-only card tools) or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context but not full routing.

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