acoes_negocio

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the actions (GANHAR, PERDER, REABRIR) which imply state changes, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what triggers. It adds the constraint that PERDER requires razao_perda_id. This is adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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: one sentence for purpose followed by three bullet-point observations. It is front-loaded with the core function and then provides actionable notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisites, and parameter-specific requirements. It does not describe the return value or errors, but for a tool with simple state-change actions, this is reasonably complete. Slightly higher completeness could include a note on idempotency or success indicators.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value. It explains the purpose of id_negocio (obtained via buscar_negocio), acao (the three enum values), and razao_perda_id (required only for PERDER, obtained via buscar_razao_perda). This contextualizes the parameters beyond the raw schema, though it could further clarify the default/null behavior of razao_perda_id for other actions.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: executing actions on a business ('ganhar, perder ou reabrir'). It explicitly lists the three actions and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (e.g., buscar_negocio for retrieval, salvar_negocio for general updates). The verb 'Executar' plus resource 'negocio' makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

The description provides concrete usage guidance with three numbered observations: using buscar_negocio to obtain the ID, using buscar_razao_perda for the loss reason ID, and noting that PERDER requires razao_perda_id. This helps the agent know prerequisites and when it is appropriate to call this tool vs. fetching data first. Missing explicit when-not-to-use statements but effectively covers key usage patterns.

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