gerar_alteracoes

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

Annotations already disclose write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent=true, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source but says nothing about whether the result is persisted, returned as text, or requires a subsequent salvar_no_suap call — a gap given the tool sits in a pipeline with save-oriented siblings.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states action, artifact and source efficiently. It is arguably too terse for the pipeline role it plays, but nothing is wasted.

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 write tool with an undocumented required parameter, no output schema and no annotations describing results, the description leaves key questions open: what exactly is produced, where it goes, and what the semester string must look like. It is not sufficient to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The single parameter 'semestre' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no format guidance (e.g., '2024.1' vs '2024-1') for its only required input. This is the one place the description should have compensated and did not.

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?

Names a specific action ('Monta') and a specific artifact ('Alterações de Atividades') plus its input source ('pendências justificadas pelo docente'), so the agent can tell what is produced. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbors such as resolver_pendencia, previa_preenchimento or montar_anexos.

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 phrase 'a partir das pendências justificadas pelo docente' implies a precondition (justified pending items must exist) but never states when to call this vs. the sibling pendência/ata tools, nor what the caller must do first. Usage is only inferable.

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