createTransaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden but only restates the creation action and the transaction types. It does not disclose side effects like balance updates, prerequisites like existing account/category IDs, or reversibility. The word 'Cria' already implies mutation, so no additional behavioral insight is offered.

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 sentence with no filler, starting with the verb and delivering the key scope immediately. It earns its place, though its brevity limits information content.

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 complex creation tool with 10 parameters and 5 required, the description lacks usage guidelines, side-effect disclosure, and parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value documentation, but the overall context remains severely incomplete.

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?

The description provides no parameter-level semantics; it does not explain 'account_id', 'category_id', 'amount_cents', or the periodicity fields in recurrence/installments objects. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only indirect help is the mention of 'recorrentes' and 'parceladas', which hints at the recurrence_attributes and installments_attributes parameters. This is insufficient for 10 parameters.

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 uses the verb 'Cria' (creates) with the resource 'movimentações' (transactions) and specifies scope: 'simples, recorrentes (fixas) ou parceladas' (simple, recurring, or installment). This distinguishes it from sibling createTransfer, which handles transfers rather than general transactions.

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 usage guidance is provided, such as when to choose this over createTransfer or updateTransaction. The intended use is only implied by the resource name 'movimentações' and the tool name, but no exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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