fluig_form_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does lead with "⚠️ ESCRITA" and clarifies that the form is born inside a GED folder, i.e. a document is created as a side effect. It stops short of stating irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens if a form with the same name already exists — meaningful gaps for an unannotated write tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the highest-risk information (write operation) is front-loaded before the mechanics. Nothing repeats the schema verbatim.

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 5-required-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, risk level, and parentId sourcing. The remaining gap is the return value — the agent cannot tell whether it gets a form/document id back, which matters for a create operation with no 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by explaining parentId's meaning ("a pasta do GED onde ele nasce") and by pointing to fluig_ged_list as the way to discover it, which the schema does not say. Other parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ("Cria um FORMULÁRIO (fichário) novo") plus the input medium ("a partir de um ZIP com o HTML"). The word "novo" implicitly separates it from fluig_form_save/fluig_form_full, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The description tells the agent how to obtain parentId ("descubra com fluig_ged_list"), which is a genuine routing hint to a sibling tool. It does not say when to use this versus fluig_form_save or what prerequisites (existing GED folder, ZIP already in FLUIG_SAIDA_DIR) must hold before calling.

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