excluir_lancamento_bancario

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

The description simply says 'deletes' without disclosing whether the operation is reversible, whether it requires any authorization, or what side effects it may have on related financial records. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to provide this critical behavioral information.

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?

One short sentence containing only the essential action. It is not bloated, but it might be overly terse, sacrificing the clarity that longer explanations could offer.

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?

A deletion operation with no output schema and no annotation support requires the description to clarify the preconditions, the identifier requirement, and the irreversibility of the deletion. The current description does none of this, making it inadequate for an AI agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema defines two optional identifier parameters (codigo_lancamento and codigo_lancamento_integracao), but the description never mentions how to identify the transaction to delete or that at least one parameter must be supplied. With 0% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it does not.

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 uses the verb 'Exclui' (deletes) and specifies the resource 'lançamento bancário em conta corrente' (bank transaction in checking account), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like incluir_lancamento_bancario, listar_lancamentos_bancarios, and consultar_lancamento_bancario. The intent is unambiguous.

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 only states the action, not when to use it or alternatives. It does not mention that the tool is the appropriate choice for deleting a specific bank transaction as opposed to cancelling a Pix or payment. The context of the sibling tools implies its use, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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