adicionar_interacao

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It reveals that content is automatically formatted to HTML, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements, leaving some gaps 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an important usage note. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool, the description is complete: it defines the action, provides critical usage instructions, and notes formatting behavior. The schema covers all parameters, and no output schema is needed. It could mention return values or side effects, but these are not essential for this tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by instructing the agent to ask for the ticket number and how to source it via other tools, which directly informs the ticketId parameter. It also reiterates the HTML formatting, aligning with the conteudo description.

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 verb ('Adiciona') and resource ('interação em um ticket existente do Movidesk'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from siblings like 'criar_ticket' by specifying action on an existing ticket.

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 explicit instructions on when to use the tool: ask the user for the ticket number, and if the client name is given, first use 'consultar_cliente' and 'listar_tickets_cliente' to find the exact ticket ID. This gives clear context and alternatives.

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