remember

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: 'Escreve em disco: confirme com o usuario antes' (writes to disk, confirm with the user first). This is a side-effect disclosure that is valuable. However, it doesn't describe return values or what confirmation flow looks like in detail, but the disk-write disclosure is the critical one.

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 description is a single compact paragraph of three sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage modes, then the critical side-effect warning. No filler or repetition. Slightly dense but efficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, two usage modes, and the write-to-disk side effect. It has an output schema, so return value explanation isn't strictly needed. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is reasonably complete, though it could elaborate on confirmation expectations.

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 compensate. It groups parameters into two usage modes (change_set vs type/title/content) which adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain each parameter's type requirements or format details, leaving the agent to infer specifics. The mode-grouping is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Grava conhecimento na base do projeto' (records knowledge in the project base). It identifies the resource (knowledge base) and the action (record/save). It distinguishes the two usage modes (change_set with an approved finish_task suggestion, or standalone type/title/content) which helps differentiate from siblings.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: use with change_set for applying an approved finish_task suggestion, or with type/title/content for standalone records. It names the specific sibling tool (finish_task) and describes when to use each mode, though it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name direct alternatives for recording knowledge.

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