POST /bill (Bill)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), and openWorldHint=true (flexible schema). The description adds an example body but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, validation rules, error handling, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise with one sentence stating the purpose and a code block example. The key information is front-loaded. The example is large but helpful. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., list fields separately) to improve readability.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (likely the created bill object). For a creation tool, this is a significant gap. The description covers input well but lacks completeness regarding response behavior.

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% for the single body parameter, but the schema itself is vague (additionalProperties: {}). The description compensates by providing a detailed JSON example showing required fields (companyId, dueDate, amount, etc.) and their structure. However, it does not explicitly list field types or constraints beyond the example.

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 clearly states the tool creates an individual expense ('Criação de uma despesa avulsa') in the Conexa system. The verb 'create' and resource 'bill' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like create_charge or create_sale. However, the description is in Portuguese while sibling names are in English, slightly reducing clarity for non-Portuguese speakers.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'despesa avulsa' (individual expense) implying one-time use, but does not contrast with recurring or other bill-related tools (e.g., create_recurring_sale). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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