fluig_ged_upload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important traits: it is a write, and it publishes the document into the GED. It also warns that the alternative route silently renames the file and drops fields, which is genuinely useful side-effect context. It stops short of stating permission requirements, overwrite behavior, or what happens on partial failure.

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, front-loaded with the write warning, zero filler. The route rationale is compressed into a single clause and still conveys the concrete hazard ([epoch] renaming, silent field loss).

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-parameter mutation with 4 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the write/publish nature but omits what the call returns (document id? URL?) and any failure or overwrite semantics. The rich schema compensates on inputs, but the missing return/failure picture leaves a real gap.

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 100%, so every parameter including the env/confirm safety semantics is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that (no default for nomeArquivo, no path-confinement restatement), so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource pair ("Sobe um arquivo local para uma pasta do GED e publica") and adds the publish step, which is the key differentiator from a plain upload. It does not name a sibling to distinguish itself from, but none of the listed siblings (ged_list/ged_path/ged_download) compete for this action, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 "⚠️ ESCRITA" marker and "publica" signal this is the mutation path, which is implied usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites (auth, write permission on the target folder, whether an existing document with the same name is replaced). The one-call vs two-step rationale explains an internal implementation choice, not a tool-selection decision.

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