br__submit_cte

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic GZip + Base64 encoding, irreversible operation, two-step confirmation gate, absence of embedded endpoint URLs, and return format (protCTe or error). This is comprehensive.

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 fairly long but each sentence provides necessary information. It is well-structured: purpose, encoding details, irreversibility, confirmation gate, return value. Could be slightly more concise but not wasteful.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values in full detail, but it mentions key parts (protCTe, nProt). For a tool with 8 parameters (3 required), it covers encoding, mandatory endpoint, confirmation process, and necessary context (e.g., no embedded endpoint). Complete.

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%, so every parameter has a description. The description adds context: xml_content is the output of br__sign_cte, endpoint_override is mandatory, and encoding details. It adds value beyond schema, especially clarifying the relationship between xml_content and xml_base64.

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 verb 'Submete um CT-e assinado' and the resource 'à autorização SEFAZ', specifying the operation as 'CTeRecepcaoSincV4, síncrono'. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., br__submit_nfe, br__submit_nfse) by focusing on CT-e submission.

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 when to use: after signing CT-e (from br__sign_cte). It mentions that submission is irreversible in production, requires two-step confirmation, and that endpoint_override is mandatory. It also gives a way to disable the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it vs alternatives.

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