incluir_fornecedor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action (register) but does not disclose any potential side effects, required permissions, or behavior on duplicate CNPJ/CPF. The description adds no transparency beyond the literal meaning.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely underspecified. It does not explain what happens on success (e.g., returned ID), validation rules, or any constraints, leaving the agent without critical context.

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 mentions none of the 14 parameters. While some parameter names like 'razao_social' and 'cnpj_cpf' are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify required fields, formats, or the meaning of ambiguous ones like 'codigo_cliente_integracao'. It adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'Cadastra um novo fornecedor no OMIE' clearly states the verb (cadastra/registers), the resource (fornecedor/supplier), and the scope (OMIE). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like consultar_fornecedor and alterar_fornecedor by specifying 'novo' (new).

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 implies usage for creating a new supplier via the word 'novo', but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alterar_fornecedor or any prerequisites. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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