Gravar snapshot de seguidores

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight for behavioral disclosure. It states it writes to local history but does not disclose side effects like whether repeated saves on the same date overwrite or append, what happens on duplicate dates, authentication requirements, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and object, the second provides clear rationale. No filler or redundant information, making it highly 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?

For a write tool with no annotations or output schema, the description omits key contextual details: idempotency (what happens if run twice for the same date), how the snapshot is stored, and whether it returns anything. The existence of sibling snapshot_history implies a complementary tool but no link is made. The rationale is helpful but not sufficient for a complete operational picture.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter detail beyond the schema, and the phrase 'todos os ativos' slightly conflicts with the assets parameter that allows filtering to a subset, introducing minor ambiguity.

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 function: 'Grava o total de seguidores de todos os ativos em um histórico local' (records total followers in a local history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like graph_api_get and snapshot_history, and the mention of building a long series adds specificity.

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 explicitly explains when to use it: because the Graph API only returns 30 days of history, running this periodically builds a long-term series. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or conditions where it should not be used, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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