arquivar_nota

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it discloses the core relocation behavior, the target path inside the repository, and the local-only guarantee ('Nada sai da máquina'). It does not mention overwrite behavior, what happens to the source file, or failure/return behavior, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Two short sentences; the action and destination are front-loaded and the final sentence adds a meaningful privacy constraint with no filler.

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 mutating file operation with no annotations and no output schema, this is only minimally complete: it supplies the destination and intent, but omits return values, collision/overwrite behavior, and relationship to sibling tools like anexar_arquivo_titulo. An agent could make a plausible call, but important edge-case context is missing.

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 only 25%, but the description compensates somewhat by mapping data_emissao to the AAAA-MM folder and titulo/fornecedor to the filename pattern. However, it never names caminho_arquivo as the source parameter or clarifies how titulo_id maps to the '<titulo>' component, leaving required parameter semantics partly underspecified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and a specific resource ('foto/arquivo da nota já lançada') plus a full destination path. The phrase 'já lançada' and the archive folder make it distinct from sibling operations like anexar_arquivo_titulo or criar_titulo even without naming them.

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 clearly states this is for notes that have already been posted ('já lançada') and frames the move as preventing duplicate posting ('para não lançar duas vezes'). It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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