Gerar patch (PTM) com rastreabilidade

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

Given no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral details: output path format, manifest contents, and mtime semantics. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, required permissions, or error handling, which are important for a generation tool.

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 concise (about 3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. It packs essential information efficiently. Minor improvement could be structuring into points, but it is effective.

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?

The description covers output path, manifest details, and return of title/description. However, it lacks detail on the exact return structure (e.g., patch file vs. path) and does not specify error conditions or required state, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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%. The description adds value by explaining how 'cliente' and 'ticket' become folder names and how 'pastaFontesLocais' is used for git commit, providing semantic context beyond the schema.

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 description clearly states the tool generates PTM patches from already compiled RPO sources, with a specific output organization and additional metadata (title, description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tds_patch_validate and tds_patch_info.

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 mentions that sources must already be compiled (prerequisite), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tds_compile or other patch tools. No when-not-to-use or context for choosing among siblings.

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