alterar_conta_receber

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose important behavior: only informed fields are updated (partial update) and one of two identifiers must be provided. However, it omits details about permission requirements, return format, error cases, or whether changes are reversible, which is significant for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and object. It avoids unnecessary words and each sentence provides essential information: what the tool does and how to invoke it correctly. This is an ideal level of conciseness.

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 tool has high complexity with 14 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the critical identification and partial update logic but fails to address the return value, error scenarios, or validation rules. Given this complexity, the description is insufficient for full understanding, leaving significant gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by clarifying that codigo_lancamento_omie and codigo_lancamento_integracao are identifiers and all other fields are optional updates. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of the remaining 12 parameters, though the property names (e.g., data_vencimento, valor_documento) are somewhat self-explanatory within a financial context.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Altera') and resource ('conta a receber existente'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like incluir_conta_receber (create), excluir_conta_receber (delete), and consultar/listar (read) by implying an update operation on an existing record.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: to modify an existing accounts receivable. It specifies the required identifier condition (codigo_lancamento_omie or codigo_lancamento_integracao) and explains the partial update behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which prevents a perfect score.

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