registrar_decisao

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: dedup suppression of similar decisions, and that a substituted decision is not deleted but marked 'substituída' and kept in history with both linked. Return format is left to the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then when-to-use, then the dedup and substitution rules — logical ordering with minimal waste. Slightly dense around the substitution sentence but every clause carries a rule an agent needs.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the semantics that matter (dedup, substitution, required title guidance), and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Missing only minor coverage of tags/decisao, which are self-evident from their names.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it defines titulo (with a concrete example), forcar, substitui, and maps the note's content to contexto, motivo, alternativas, consequencias and projeto. Only tags and the decisao body itself are left undocumented, a minor residual gap.

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 ('registrar uma decisão como nota em Decisões/') and enumerates the structured content it captures (data, projeto no grafo, contexto, porquê, alternativas, consequências). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like criar_nota or registrar_aprendizado without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Use PROATIVAMENTE quando uma decisão for fechada na conversa') plus two edge-case policies: skip-and-point when a similar decision exists (unless forcar=True), and use substitui when revoking/changing a prior decision. Nothing is left to inference.

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