criar_nota

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed world). The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: 'Nunca sobrescreve: se o nome existir, cria outro', which the agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose first, then linking convention, then the collision behavior. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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?

Mutation semantics, overwrite behavior, and linking convention are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The only real gap is the undocumented tags and pasta parameters.

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% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the [[Título]] link syntax for the content field. tags and pasta are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Cria uma nova nota markdown livre') and implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by warning that decisions and learnings should use the dedicated tools. It could have named registrar_decisao/registrar_aprendizado explicitly, but the intent is clear.

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?

Explicitly routes away from this tool for decisions/learnings ('prefira as tools próprias'), which names the when-not condition, and the overwrite clause clarifies it is not the tool for updating existing notes. No named alternative though.

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