marcar_aula_concluida

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered structurally. The description contributes the explicit-request guard, which is useful context. However, it says nothing about what happens if the lesson is already marked complete, whether the change can be reverted, or whether the module/lesson must already exist.

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, action first, then the invocation guard. Nothing redundant and nothing buried.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations declaring idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is minimally adequate. It is incomplete on the things an agent would actually need here: how free-text lesson/module names are resolved, and what result or error to expect when the lesson is already completed or does not exist.

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% and both parameters ('modulo', 'aula') carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the work. The description adds no information about matching semantics, which matters because both params accept free-text names or numbers and could ambiguously match multiple lessons.

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 and resource ('marca uma aula como concluída no progresso de estudos'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (registrar_duvida, listar_modulos, buscar/ler_anotacao). No explicit sibling differentiation is needed since the resource is unique, but it also doesn't say what 'progresso de estudos' additionally updates.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: only call when the user explicitly requests it. That is a genuine when-to-use constraint rather than implied usage. It falls short of 5 because it names no alternatives or fallback behavior when the user asks indirectly.

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