associar_demanda_sprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical constraint (rejection if the demand is already in another sprint), which is valuable. However, it does not mention other side effects, permissions, or success/failure response details, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and key constraint with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 simple association tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical rejection rule. It lacks details on return values or error codes, but the functionality is straightforward, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (sprint_id and demanda_id) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's function: associating an existing demand to a sprint, using a specific verb (Associa) and a specific resource pair (demanda, sprint). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which operate on creating demands, listing sprints, etc., making the purpose 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 description implies its usage (associate a demand to a sprint) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. Siblings like criar_demanda or listar_sprints are not referenced, so an agent receives no explicit guidance on selecting this tool over others.

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