concluir_subtarefas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does disclose the core mutating behavior (changing statuses) and the bulk selection logic. But it does not clarify what happens with invalid/non-existent IDs, whether passing both selectors causes an error, or whether the operation is atomic; these gaps are representative of a mutation operation with zero annotation support.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence captures the action and the two invocation modes without redundant text or filler. It is efficiently structured and easy to scan, earning full-conciseness score.

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?

The description covers the main invocation modes and is adequate for a simple batch-update tool, but it leaves ambiguity about whether at least one of `subtarefa_ids` or `demanda_id` is mandatory: both appear optional in the schema while the wording only implies them as alternatives. With no output schema and no annotations, a slightly more explicit note about required combinations or error behavior would complete the picture.

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%, and each property already has a clear description. The tool description restates the relationship between `subtarefa_ids` and `demanda_id` but adding no richer semantics than the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a concrete action ('Conclui ou altera o status') on a cleared resource ('múltiplas subtarefas') and emphasizes the batch/single-operation nature, which sets it apart from singular siblings like atualizar_subtarefa and criar_subtarefa. The tool's differentiated purpose is immediately understandable.

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 phrase 'em uma única operação' clearly signals when to use this tool over per-item updates, and the parenthesis explains the two main invocation styles (list of IDs or a demanda_id). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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