excluir_conta_pagar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the scope (open items only) but omits that deletion is permanent, any side effects, and permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence with an essential qualifier in parentheses. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of redundancy.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and undefined parameter semantics, the description leaves critical gaps about how to specify the target entry and what happens after deletion. The open-items constraint is helpful but insufficient for complete usage.

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 tool description does not explain the purpose of 'codigo_lancamento_omie' or 'codigo_lancamento_integracao', nor whether at least one is required. The parameter names offer vague hints but no operational guidance.

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 identifies the action ('Exclui') and resource ('conta a pagar do OMIE'), and adds a scope constraint ('apenas títulos em aberto'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'excluir_conta_receber' and 'cancelar_pagamento_conta_pagar'.

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 parenthetical 'apenas títulos em aberto' provides clear usage guidance: only open (unpaid) payables should be deleted. This implies that other tools handle paid items or cancellations, though alternatives are not explicitly named.

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