gerar_rascunhos

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral guarantee beyond that: existing reviewed texts are preserved unless explicitly requested. It still omits what a 'rascunho' contains, whether it runs synchronously, and what the result looks like.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the non-destructive guarantee as a parenthetical clause. No wasted words, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter detail.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential effect and the preservation guarantee. However, with 0% parameter documentation it leaves the agent guessing about the 'semestre' format and the exact trigger for 'sobrescrever', which is the main gap.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The description never names 'semestre' nor its expected format, and only indirectly gestures at 'sobrescrever' via 'salvo se pedido'. With no schema documentation, the description should have compensated but largely does 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Gera') and resource ('rascunhos automáticos dos Relatos'), so the agent knows this produces draft report content. It does not name or contrast itself with any sibling (e.g. gerar_alteracoes, previa_preenchimento), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 'não sobrescreve textos já revisados, salvo se pedido' implies the default execution context and hints at when to set the override, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like gerar_alteracoes or previa_preenchimento. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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