salvar_texto

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write within a closed world. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint beyond the schema: only a simple HTML subset (p, ul, li, strong) is accepted. It does not state auth requirements or overwrite semantics, so it exceeds the annotation bar but only modestly.

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 the verb first and no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though partly a byproduct of under-specification rather than deliberate compression.

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 write tool with no annotations explaining consequences, no output schema, and three fully undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It should at minimum explain what 'semestre'/'topico' expect and whether saving overwrites an existing report.

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 all three required parameters. The description clarifies the expected content of 'html' (simple HTML subset), which is real value, but says nothing about the semantics, format, or valid values of 'semestre' and 'topico' beyond their names.

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 ('Grava o Relato') and names the two targets: a topic or the special 'alteracoes' entry. An agent can tell what is written, though it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as gerar_alteracoes or registrar_ata.

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 the tool persists a report, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never contrasts it with the many sibling tools that also handle topics or alterations. The 'de um tópico ou de alteracoes' clause describes the target, not the selection condition.

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