resolver_pendencia

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the disclosure bar. The description adds useful behavioral context about the decision semantics and a special-case workflow, but does not address reversibility, permissions, or effects on unlisted pendências.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the decision list and special case follow in a tight, scannable form. No filler, though it is slightly dense in domain shorthand.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and sibling-tool inputs, the description covers the decision enum and a special case but leaves `semestre` and `justificativa` semantics unaddressed. With no output schema it needn't describe returns, but the parameter gaps hold it to a minimum-viable level.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the parameter burden. It documents the `decisao` values well (manter | remover_item | justificar | ignorar) and notes that `justificativa` is required for 'justificar', and explains where `numeros` come from; however `semestre` and the format of `justificativa` remain undocumented, so compensation is partial.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Registra a decisão DO DOCENTE sobre uma ou mais pendências') and grounds it by naming the source tools (`preparar_rit`/`resumo_semestre`) whose numbers it consumes. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like detalhar_pendencia or preparar_rit without opening the schema.

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 gives strong contextual routing: the decision values are spelled out and a conditional workflow is provided for the 'lattes_sem_comprovante' case (put proof in `pasta_entrada` and use 'manter', or 'ignorar' if it doesn't enter the RIT). There is no explicit when-not clause or comparison against a competing tool, 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.