Criar Transação

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the description's 'Operação de escrita' adds little. It does mention the confirm: true requirement, which is behavioral. However, it lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or the fact that it creates a permanent record, which would be useful beyond the annotation.

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 brief with three sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the purpose. Could be slightly more structured but maintains high efficiency.

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 complexity (16 parameters, low schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value, error handling, and the different transaction types. It only covers a small fraction of the tool's usage 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 only 13%, placing a burden on the description to explain parameters, but it only mentions confirm: true. Many critical parameters like account_id, category_id, amount_cents, date, and transaction_type are not explained in the description, leaving the agent to rely on the schema's sparse descriptions.

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 it creates a real transaction ('Cria uma transação real no Despezzas') and identifies it as a write operation. It distinguishes from the sibling tool despezzas_prepare_create_transaction by indicating that the prepare tool must be used first.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use despezzas_prepare_create_transaction first and never guess IDs of account, card, or category. Also notes the requirement of confirm: true, providing clear guidance on when and how to use this tool.

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