fluig_rm_save_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it flags the operation as a production ERP write, discloses the dryRun-then-confirm two-phase behavior, and explains the semantic guarantees (formula, consistency, numbering, allocation) that a raw UPDATE would bypass. This is exactly the behavioral context needed to invoke a mutation safely.

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 dense sentences with the write warning and the correct method front-loaded before the workflow steps; there is little waste. The heavy emphasis markers and capitalization cost some readability but nothing is off-topic.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the safety profile, the dryRun/confirm protocol, and the external validation dependency (fluig_rm_dataserver_schema). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without risking an unintended production write.

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 env, confirm, contexto and dataServerName is already documented at the schema level. The description reinforces the confirm/dryRun semantics and the XML format but adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 and resource (grava registro no RM via Business Layer DataServer.saveRecord) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the direct-write sibling fluig_rm_db_exec. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it is not.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: call first WITHOUT confirm to inspect the dryRun, validate the XML against fluig_rm_dataserver_schema, then confirm. It also names the alternative (fluig_rm_db_exec) and instructs preferring this tool over it. This is a full when/when-not/alternatives specification.

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