registrar_atas_gmail

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-destructive, idempotent write with open-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations — it downloads the attached PDF — but says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, what happens to unselected candidates, or where the registration is persisted.

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; the key action and its dependency are stated immediately. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a mutation tool with undocumented parameters.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description need not cover return values, and annotations cover the write/idempotency profile. However, for a 2-parameter write tool at 0% schema coverage, the missing 'semestre' format and the ambiguity about where the record is stored leave a real 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 required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain the provenance of 'numeros' (from buscar_atas_gmail), but gives no format or expected value for 'semestre' and never clarifies that 'numeros' is an integer array, leaving half the inputs undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('registra as candidatas escolhidas pelo docente') and clarifies which entries are affected by pointing to the source of the numbers. It is distinguishable from siblings like buscar_atas_gmail, though it does not clearly separate itself from registrar_ata or say where the registration lands (local vs. SUAP).

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?

Establishes a clear workflow dependency: the 'numeros' argument comes from buscar_atas_gmail and only the entries chosen by the docente should be passed. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative is given, so it stops short of the top score.

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