aya_memoria_atualizar_estado

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'De forma sanitizada' hints at validation but doesn't specify whether the write overwrites or merges, whether locking is required, or what safety guarantees exist. For a mutating write to a central state file, this is a significant gap that leaves critical behavior undisclosed.

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 a single efficient sentence, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance — the one sentence does almost no work beyond the tool name. It reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 state-mutating tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is severely inadequate. The risk profile — writing to estado-execucao.json — demands at minimum clarity on merge-vs-overwrite behavior and sequencing constraints relative to lock tools. This leaves an agent without enough information to call it safely.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it says nothing about any of the 10 parameters. It doesn't clarify whether the write is a wholesale replacement or a field-level merge, nor how defaults interact with existing state. Parameter names are self-descriptive, but the update semantics are completely undocumented.

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 (Atualiza), a specific resource (estado-execucao.json), and a manner ('de forma sanitizada'). This is clear about what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like aya_memoria_criar_checkpoint, aya_arquivo_escrever_seguro, or aya_memoria_gerar_handoff, and the meaning of 'sanitizada' is left ambiguous.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple memory and file-writing siblings (aya_arquivo_escrever_seguro, aya_arquivo_substituir_literal, aya_memoria_criar_checkpoint), the description offers no context for selection, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must guess when this is appropriate.

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