Br Submit Nfe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It discloses that the operation is irreversible in production, requires two-step confirmation, is synchronous, and returns protNFe or an error. It even mentions how to disable the tool via BR_READ_ONLY=1.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by critical safety/confirmation facts, then the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

The description covers purpose, synchronization, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, disable mechanism, and return value, which is strong for a 9-parameter tool with a rich output schema. It could be more explicit about the practical two-step confirmation flow, such as what the first call returns and how the confirmation_token is used, though the schema partially covers this.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about the signed input and two-step confirmation but does not materially add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it submits a signed NF-e/NFC-e to SEFAZ authorization via NFeAutorizacao4 synchronously. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like br__submit_nfse and br__submit_cte, which target different document types.

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 gives clear context: the input must be a signed NF-e/NFC-e and the operation is synchronous. It explicitly warns that submission is irreversible and requires two-step confirmation, which informs when the tool should be invoked, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusion conditions.

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