marcar_tarefa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation mutates state (marks/unmarks, reversible via feito) and hints that warnings may be returned ('Relate os avisos'), but says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what a successful response contains.

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 prose is not wasteful in raw length, but it opens with a block of generic workflow rules that apply broadly across write tools, and only reaches the actual purpose ('Marca ou desmarca uma caixa de tarefa') at the end. Reordering so the operation leads would improve structure.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description provides meaningful workflow guidance but omits error behavior, permission requirements, and return format. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 compensate. It explains `tarefa` (an excerpt appearing in only one task, or a #id) and implicitly `feito` (feito=true marks), but leaves `pagina_id` completely unexplained in either schema or description. Two of three parameters are partly clarified.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Marca (feito=true) ou desmarca uma caixa de tarefa' — marking or unmarking a task checkbox. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like editar or acrescentar. However the purpose statement is buried at the very end after a block of generic workflow boilerplate, which weakens its front-loading.

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?

It gives substantial procedural guidance (read spec before writing, read page before editing if not already read, imitate neighboring patterns, make the smallest possible edit, reread after structural edits, report warnings). These are useful prerequisites, but they are generic write-tool rules rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over editar or another sibling, and the when/when-not distinction is only implied.

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