incluir_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 of behavioral disclosure. It simply states that it creates a new account payable, which is an implied mutation, but it does not mention idempotency, required permissions, side effects, or what the response contains. This is minimal for a create operation.

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, concise sentence, which is structurally efficient. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 11 parameters, lacking any mention of required fields or additional context. It is appropriately sized for a simple CRUD purpose but does not fully earn its place due to omitted information.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, what the required parameters represent, or any potential error conditions. For a complex create operation, this level of detail is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 provides no additional meaning for any of the 11 parameters. While some parameter names are self-explanatory (e.g., 'valor_documento', 'data_vencimento'), others like 'codigo_lancamento_integracao' and 'id_conta_corrente' remain ambiguous. The description does nothing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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: 'Cria uma nova conta a pagar no OMIE' (Creates a new accounts payable in OMIE). The verb 'cria' and resource 'conta a pagar' are specific and distinguish this tool from siblings like 'alterar_conta_pagar' and '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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships with sibling tools like 'alterar_conta_pagar' or 'listar_contas_pagar'. The description only states the action without contextual usage advice.

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