sapiens_aula

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses server-side behaviors: voice re-linting producing voiceWarnings, on-demand serving via /aulas/<slug> without rebuild, and admin restriction semantics ('aluno leva restrito ao dono'). These details meaningfully extend what annotations alone provide and do not contradict them.

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 dense but not bloated; every sentence carries necessary information and the core purpose is front-loaded before sub-action details. However, it is a single long paragraph without visual separation (bullets/line breaks), which slightly hurts scannability for an agent.

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 complex tool with three sub-actions and no output schema, the description covers the required input structure, slide type taxonomy, voice constraints, and route behavior. The main gap is that the upsert response/return value is not specified, though list fields and get's 'aula completa' output are hinted.

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 coverage is 67% (aula and slug have descriptions; action does not), and the description compensates by explaining the action enum's behavior, slug kebab-case format, and the upsert semantics (create-if-missing vs patch). It adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it partly repeats the schema's already-detailed aula structure.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Cria e edita aula direto no Convex' and enumerates its sub-actions (list, get, upsert), making the verb+resource explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling sapiens_* tools, only from the external migrate script, so it stops short of the full sibling-distinguishing criterion.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance per sub-action, states that it replaces the migrate-aulas-to-convex.mjs script, and declares the ADMIN-ONLY constraint, including the student case. This is strong, actionable usage guidance with a named alternative and exclusion conditions.

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