criar_subtarefa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by revealing that the operation can be blocked for unqualified projects and that offline calls are stored in a local queue for later submission. It does not mention auth requirements or result handling, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 description is three well-structured sentences, each delivering a distinct piece of information: what the tool does, when it is blocked, and how offline behavior works. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description gives essential context about offline behavior and blocking, which improves call accuracy. It could additionally clarify what the agent receives after submission, especially in offline mode, but the current description still covers the main operational context.

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 the input schema already documents all six parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline but does not go further.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cria') and clearly defines the resource as a technical subtask linked to an existing demand. This differentiates it from sibling tools like criar_demanda, atualizar_subtarefa, and concluir_subtarefas without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 text establishes that the subtask must be tied to an existing demand ('demanda existente'), making it clear this is not for new demands, and it describes blocking conditions for unidentified/ignored projects. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the demand-vs-subtask distinction is evident.

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