registrar_revisao_textual

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 so well: it discloses literal-match validation, rejected items returning in recusados with reasons, automatic PB/TR item resolution, and that apontamentos are treated as suggestions outside the conformity index.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary and then uses three short paragraphs to explain important behavioral details. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each paragraph earns its place.

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 output schema exists and the schema covers all parameters, the description is largely complete for invocation: it explains validation, rejection handling, and report placement. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but that gap is already reflected in the usage dimension.

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; the description adds value by explaining that trecho must exist literally and that the PB/TR item is resolved automatically from the cited trecho. It does not add much for formatos, but the schema already documents that parameter.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool registers the review and generates final reports, with 'Passo 3 de 3' indicating its place in a workflow. It is distinct from analysis and text-obtaining siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling gerar_relatorio.

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 usage as the final step ('Passo 3 de 3') after analysis, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gerar_relatorio or analisar_conformidade. There are no exclusion conditions or alternative recommendations.

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