anotar

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the key destructive trait (empty note removes the entry) and implies overwrite via "atualiza", but says nothing about permissions, whether the group must already exist, or what happens on invalid slugs.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation front-loaded and the edge-case (empty note) placed second where it belongs. No filler wording.

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 trivial two-parameter, fully documented mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior including its destructive edge case. Only auth/existence prerequisites are left unstated, which is minor at this complexity.

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%, and the schema itself already documents both parameters including the empty-string removal rule, so the description adds no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb pair ("Salva/atualiza") and a specific resource ("a nota livre (mini-CRM) de um grupo"), so the write operation is unambiguous. It does not name the read counterpart (ler_notas) explicitly, but the write scope is clear enough to distinguish it from a listing tool.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is obvious this is the way to record a group note, and the second sentence gives the removal path. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as ler_notas.

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