salvar_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary conversion and save action but fails to mention important behaviors such as whether existing files are overwritten, whether the base64 is validated, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a file-writing operation.

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 concise sentences, with the main action front-loaded and the practical use case following. No wasteful words or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter utility with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and provides a relevant use case linking to a sibling tool. It lacks some edge-case information, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the schema terms but adds no new semantic detail beyond suggesting the base64 originates from label generation.

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 uses specific verbs ('Converte', 'salva') and identifies the resource (PDF file) and destination path. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the label generation tool (gerar_etiquetas), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by stating the tool is useful for saving labels generated by gerar_etiquetas, which tells the agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling list shows no other saving tool, so this suffices.

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