salvar_no_suap

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds important behavioral context: saves as draft, never submits, and requires explicit approval before calling. It does not explain what happens if confirmado is false or how existing content is affected, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a key constraint, followed by a concise usage condition. Zero wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (write operation, annotations, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and the critical approval gate. The missing explanation of the semestre parameter is a notable gap, but overall it is sufficient for safe invocation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains confirmado (must be true after approval) but says nothing about the required semestre parameter, leaving half the parameters 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 (Grava), resources (textos e anexos) and target (formulário do RIT), and clarifies the output state (RASCUNHO) plus a critical constraint (Nunca entrega). This lets an agent distinguish it from submission tools 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?

Provides a clear invocation condition: only call with confirmado=true after the professor explicitly approves the preview. It does not name alternative tools for submitting or other draft-saving paths, but the 'never submits' note implicitly rules out submission use.

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