sincronizar_payables

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 explains the tool pulls data from Pagar.me and saves to SQLite, which gives some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether existing records are overwritten, whether this is destructive to local data, rate-limit concerns, or the time scope of the operation given 'dias'). The write-to-SQLite aspect is implied but not elaborated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then scope. Zero wasted words and conveys the core functionality efficiently. It's appropriately concise for a simple sync tool.

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 single-parameter sync tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for the core action. However, given zero annotations, it could benefit from noting side effects (overwrite behavior, idempotency) and return values since there's no output schema to document these. The absence of these details leaves some uncertainty for a mutating sync operation.

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 100% for the single 'dias' parameter, with a clear default and description in the schema. The tool description itself repeats the 'periodo' concept mentioned in the schema ('de um periodo'), matching the 'dias' parameter, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource ('Sincroniza payables da Pagar.me para o banco local') and mentions the scope ('Puxa todos os payables de um periodo'). It's clear this pulls payables from an external source into a local database. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'sincronizar_shopify' or 'sincronizar_tudo', though the payables-specific focus is fairly distinct.

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. There's an implicit sense it's for sync operations, but no explicit direction on when to prefer this over 'sincronizar_tudo' or other sync tools, nor any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., need for API credentials, prior configuration).

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