salvar_preferencias

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully adds that this writes to a local markdown file and does not hit the API. It omits, however, that the default mode ('substituir') overwrites existing preference content — a mutation consequence an agent should know, and one that sits awkwardly with destructiveHint=false (that detail only appears in the schema).

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 short sentences, purpose and destination front-loaded, with the negative behavioral note ('Não chama a API') trailing. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the name or schema.

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 two-parameter local write with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, target file and folder, and the local-vs-API distinction. It leaves the resolution of 'pasta de modelos' implicit and does not flag the default overwrite, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%: 'texto' and the 'modo' enum with its substituir/acrescentar semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or content guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (salvar) and resource (preferências do cliente) plus the exact destination (preferencias.md, na pasta de modelos) and the reason (para as próximas conversas). It is clearly the write counterpart to the sibling ler_preferencias, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Para as próximas conversas' implies the use case (persisting preferences for later sessions), and 'Não chama a API' hints at when this is the right choice over API-backed siblings like exportar_preenchimentos. However, it never states when NOT to use it or explicitly routes the agent to ler_preferencias for reading back preferences, so guidance is only implied.

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