criar_titulo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the confirmation requirement, the automatic duplicate check (same creditor + document number within ±60 days), the refusal behavior, and the accepted date/number formats. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent critical operational context.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by the confirmation gate, duplicate policy, and formatting rules. Every sentence adds essential operational information and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 complex creation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the key context needed to invoke it correctly: preconditions, duplicate handling, and value formats. It could additionally describe the return value or post-creation outcome, but the information critical to a correct call is present.

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 53%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful global guidance for date parameters (DD/MM/AAAA or AAAA-MM-DD), numeric values (1.234,56), and explains the behavior of ignorar_duplicidade, which the schema does not describe. It does not individually document every parameter, but the high-leverage formatting rules cover the most error-prone ones.

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 ('Lança um título'), the resource ('contas a pagar do Sienge'), and the endpoint ('POST /bills'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from lookup-oriented siblings like buscar_titulos and consultar_titulo.

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?

It explicitly states when the tool may be called: only after showing the summary and receiving user confirmation, and with confirmado:true. It also explains when duplicate refusal can be bypassed with ignorar_duplicidade. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus related creation/lookup tools.

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