aya_loop_falha_limpar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only states the basic clearing behavior. It does not disclose whether the counter reset is irreversible, whether evidence is validated before clearing, what happens if the falha does not exist, or any side effects.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the action and the precondition are both present and front-loaded.

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?

The tool mutates state, has one undocumented required parameter, and no output schema or annotations, yet the description adds no detail about the parameter or the consequences of clearing. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 0% and the description never mentions 'assinatura', the single required parameter. An agent has no way to know what signature format is expected or how to obtain it.

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 names a specific action ('Limpa o contador'), a precise resource ('de uma falha'), and a condition ('depois de evidencia real de correcao'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling aya_loop_falha_registrar, which registers rather than clears a failure.

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 context for use: only after real evidence of correction. It does not name the alternative aya_loop_falha_registrar or state explicit exclusions, so it misses the full when/when-not/alternatives set.

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