Criar conta

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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false); the description adds the non-obvious two-mode behavior, that omission of `confirm` turns a write into a preview. That is exactly the kind of safety-relevant context annotations cannot express. It does not disclose validation failure behavior or what the returned payload contains.

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, no filler, with the identity of the tool stated first and the critical `confirm` caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema and no descriptive schema annotations, the definition covers the decisive commit/preview semantics but leaves the meaning of half the parameters and the shape of the preview payload unexplained. Adequate to avoid a dangerous call, not complete enough to call it confidently.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the weight, and it only explains `confirm`, the single most consequential one. The remaining parameters (`name`, `type`, `logo`, `note`, `excludeFromBalance`) are left entirely to self-descriptive names and the enum list in the schema, with no clarification of required-ness or the balance-exclusion effect.

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 ('Cria uma conta financeira'), which clearly separates it from the sibling verbs get_account and update_account by name alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the purpose is 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 second sentence gives a concrete operating condition: without `confirm: true`, nothing is persisted and only the would-be payload is returned. This is real when-to-use guidance for the dry-run versus commit path, though it says nothing about when to create a new account versus updating an existing one.

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