incluir_lancamento_bancario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a manual entry but does not explain side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, how debit/credit is determined (e.g., sign of valor), or the role of codigo_conta_destino for transfers. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It competently states the core purpose. However, given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations), it could be slightly larger without becoming bloated, but it still earns its place.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter semantics, behavioral effects, or when to use it. The lack of any guidance makes it insufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly for all but the simplest implicit use.

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 does not compensate. It does not explain any of the 10 parameters, including required fields like codigo_conta_corrente, data_lancamento, valor, or codigo_categoria. The mention of 'débito ou crédito' is the only hint, but it is not mapped to any parameter.

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 creates a manual bank transaction (lançamento) in a checking account, specifying debit or credit. This distinguishes it from siblings like listar_lancamentos_bancarios, consultar_lancamento_bancario, and excluir_lancamento_bancario, and also from creation tools for contas a pagar/receber.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for accounts payable/receivable you should use incluir_conta_pagar/receber, or when to use this instead of lancar_pagamento/recebimento. There is no context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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