Anotar decisão

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the observable outcome (it is recorded in the game's history and shows up in the GDD), which is genuinely useful since neither schema nor annotations convey it. However, it says nothing about whether the entry can be edited/removed, whether the game must already exist, or what the call returns.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the GDD side effect in a short parenthetical. Nothing is redundant and there is no padding.

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 two-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what is stored and where it surfaces, which is the minimum an agent needs. It still leaves gaps on failure modes (unknown 'jogo'), prerequisites relative to criar_jogo, and the nature of the free-text 'texto' field.

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 only 50%: 'jogo' is documented in the schema but 'texto' has no description. The phrase 'decisão, ideia solta ou mudança de rumo' partially compensates by telling the agent what content belongs in the undocumented 'texto' parameter, but it gives no length, format, or free-text expectations beyond that.

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 concrete verb+resource: stores a decision/loose idea/change of direction into the game's history (the GDD). That is specific enough to separate it from siblings like gerar_gdd or salvar_etapa, though it never names or explicitly excludes any alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied by the enumerated content types ('decisão, ideia solta ou mudança de rumo'), which hints at when this is the right tool. There is no explicit when-to-use vs salvar_etapa/gerar_gdd guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. game must already exist), and no exclusions.

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