Registrar a aprovação do plano pelo usuário

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), it discloses the return payload contents, that gravar=true with arquivo_json persists into the file itself, that it refuses when the audit has failures, and that downstream contract/scenario changes invalidate the approval. These are substantive behavioral traits that annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the critical precondition, then behavior and constraints in a compact block. Every sentence carries information; formatting packs a lot into a few clauses, though slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the returned aprovacao object, and it covers the precondition, persistence behavior, and invalidation for a 5-parameter tool with nested objects. Complete enough to invoke correctly, though it does not detail especificacao's structure (delegated to calculo_modelo_json).

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics: the arquivo_json + gravar=true interaction and the mapping of por/observacoes into the returned aprovacao object. That goes beyond what the per-field schema descriptions convey.

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 action on a specific resource: registering the user's approval of the interpretation plan, and it names the artifact it produces (contrato.aprovacao). It is clear enough to distinguish from calculo_plano_interpretacao and calculo_validar, but it never explicitly names those siblings, so it lands short of a 5.

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 gives a hard precondition (use ONLY after the user approved the plan in the conversation) plus refusal and invalidation conditions (refuses if the audit has failures; later changes to contract or scenario invalidate approval). No alternative tool is explicitly named for the not-yet-approved case, so it stops short of 5.

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