registrar_ata

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the email-integration source and the base64 attachment convention, but says nothing about permissions, what is persisted, or side effects on registration.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the input-format guidance. No wasted prose, though the attachment sentence is the weakest link in 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?

For a 4-required-parameter write tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description explains only two inputs and omits expected values for the required semestre/assunto/remetente fields and the role of id_mensagem. An agent would likely have to guess at most arguments.

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% across 8 parameters, so the burden is fully on the description. It only clarifies 'data' (accepted formats) and 'anexo_base64' (base64 PDF), leaving semestre, assunto, remetente, texto, anexo_nome and id_mensagem completely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Registra uma ata/convocação') and adds the source context ('encontrada no e-mail'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling 'registrar_atas_gmail', leaving the boundary between the two ambiguous.

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 implies usage context (records a minute/summons coming from the host's email integration) and gives a conditional instruction for the attachment ('Envie o PDF anexo em base64 se tiver acesso a ele'). It does not state when to prefer this over 'registrar_atas_gmail' or any other sibling, nor any prerequisites.

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