excluir_conta_receber

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose the behavioral implications. It states that this is a delete operation, but it fails to mention whether deletion is permanent, any required permissions, or potential side effects. The constraint about open items is helpful but insufficient for a destructive action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that delivers the core message without any fluff. It earns its place by stating both the action and the eligibility condition, making it easy to scan.

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?

This is a destructive delete tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description omits crucial context: return values, error behavior, which parameter to use, and what happens after deletion. It is far from complete for the complexity involved.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters ('codigo_lancamento_omie' and 'codigo_lancamento_integracao'). Since neither parameter is required, the description should at least hint that one of them is needed to identify the record, but it says nothing about them.

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 action ('Exclui' = deletes) and the resource ('conta a receber' = accounts receivable) with the specific OMIE platform context. It adds a key constraint ('apenas títulos em aberto' = only open items), which distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like excluir_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 description provides an implicit usage condition: only open accounts receivable can be deleted. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over other delete tools (e.g., excluir_conta_pagar) or mention prerequisites like which identifier must be provided.

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