anexar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description usefully adds that text goes to the END of an existing note, but does not state what happens if the note does not exist, whether append is transactional, or any permission requirements.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and target resource, with a brief illustrative example. No wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a simple two-parameter append tool the description covers the core operation, but leaves the agent guessing about failure modes on a missing note and about why to prefer this over atualizar_nota.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that "texto" is appended content and that "nota" must be an existing markdown note, but adds no format guidance (path vs. identifier, size limits). Partial compensation at baseline 3.

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 specific verb ("acrescenta") and resource ("nota markdown existente"), plus the precise target location ("ao final"). An agent can tell this appends rather than replaces. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling atualizar_nota, which also modifies notes.

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 parenthetical example ("complementar uma decisão") implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. With both atualizar_nota and criar_nota as siblings, the agent must infer that this is for appending to an existing note vs. updating or creating one.

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