criar_credor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical safety requirement (confirmado:true), explicitly warns not to call before user approval, and discloses idempotent duplicate behavior ('devolve o existente sem duplicar'). This provides meaningful insight beyond the raw schema.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, with the key safety prerequisite front-loaded and the duplicate behavior stated second. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation condition and duplicate behavior, but it does not address the full parameter set, return values, or error conditions. Given the 9 parameters图示, no output schema, and no annotations, a more complete description is necessary for fully reliable use. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 only 44%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds context about the duplicate check based on 'documento' (cpf/cnpj) and emphasizes confirmado, but it does not explain parameter relationships, required formats, or the role of fields like telefone and inscricao_estadual. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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 states a specific action ('Cadastra') and a clear resource ('um fornecedor (credor) no Sienge'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_credor, verificar_documento, and criar_titulo, which have different purposes.

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 gives an explicit precondition: 'Exige confirmado:true — só chame depois que o usuário aprovou no chat.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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