fluig_process_move_rest

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it flags the tool as a WRITE (⚠️ ESCRITA), discloses that 412 is handled and returned as data containing the valid options, and warns that the int primitives default to 0 rather than null when omitted. It also honestly discloses an uncertainty (formFields semantics unconfirmed) and prescribes the safe workaround, which is unusually candid behavioral context.

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 critical fact (write operation) is front-loaded and each ⚠️ bullet carries distinct operational value with no filler. It is dense and uses compressed telegraphic phrasing that takes a moment to parse, which costs it the top mark.

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 4-param write tool with a nested 8-field object and no output schema, the description covers the hazards that actually break calls: env/confirm explicitness, the 0-default trap, and formFields replacement risk. It describes the error path (412) but never says what a successful return contains, leaving that gap to be discovered at runtime.

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, but the description adds real semantics the schema lacks: omission of targetState/movementSequence sends 0 (never null), and formFields should be treated as full replacement requiring the complete card. It does not explain assignee, asManager, or subProcessTargetState beyond the schema's field list, so it stops short of full coverage.

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 ("Movimenta a solicitação pela REST v2") with a concrete implementation detail (retorno tipado, trata 412) and explicitly names the sibling it replaces ("Alternativa a fluig_process_move (SOAP)"). An agent can distinguish it from fluig_process_move without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this instead of the SOAP fluig_process_move, and read the card first with fluig_process_card_get before sending formFields. It also gives the conditional instruction "com gateway no fluxo, informe targetState sempre," which is exactly the when-to-do-X guidance that prevents a failed call.

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