aya_agentes_registrar_veto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the operation does not alter code, but it does not disclose persistence, idempotency, permissions, or response behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, object, and the key non-mutation guarantee. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, side effects, expected return, and how vetoes relate to other workflow records, leaving an agent to guess.

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?

The schema has no per-property descriptions, and the description only clarifies that the agent is a reviewer/tester/critic. It does not define 'alvo', 'motivo', or 'evidencias' beyond their names and schema constraints, so the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Registra') and resource ('veto de agente revisor/tester/critico'), and the qualifier 'sem alterar codigo' makes the non-code-modifying intent clear. It is distinguishable from code-editing tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

No usage conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to alternative tools are provided. The phrase 'sem alterar codigo' hints at a non-mutating registration action, but the description does not explain when to prefer this over related registration/logging tools.

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