alterar_conta_pagar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior ('só os informados são atualizados') and the need for an identifier, which are key side effects. It does not mention return values, error behavior, reversibility, or permissions, but the partial update disclosure is substantial.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by essential usage instructions. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 12 parameters, the description covers core purpose and partial update semantics but omits return values, error conditions, and detailed parameter explanations. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for a complex update operation.

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%, and the description meaningfully clarifies that codigo_lancamento_omie and codigo_lancamento_integracao are identifiers and the rest are optional. However, it does not explain the meaning, format, or relationships for the other 10 parameters beyond their surface-level names, so the compensation is partial.

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 'Altera uma conta a pagar existente' — a specific verb (alter) and resource (existing accounts payable). It distinguishes from siblings like incluir_conta_pagar, consultar_conta_pagar, and excluir_conta_pagar, and adds the identification requirement.

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?

It provides clear usage context: you must inform either codigo_lancamento_omie or codigo_lancamento_integracao to identify the record, and that other fields are optional with only specified ones updated. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the instruction is concrete. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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