excluir_conta_receber

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the open-title restriction but reveals nothing about side effects, irreversibility, required permissions, or consequences (e.g., whether deletion cascades to related movements). For a destructive action, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the action and a key restriction, earning its place 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?

For a delete operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter explanation, the description is inadequate. It lacks return value details, idempotency, or references to related tools in a rich sibling context. The open-title parenthetical helps but is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It adds no explanation of the two identifiers ('codigo_lancamento_omie' and 'codigo_lancamento_integracao'), their relationship, or the need to provide at least one. The parameter names offer some hint but are not enough to guide correct invocation.

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 ('Exclui' - deletes) and resource ('conta a receber do OMIE'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'excluir_conta_pagar'. The parenthetical 'apenas títulos em aberto' further clarifies the scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 constraint 'apenas títulos em aberto' implies this tool is for open receivables, giving context on when it is applicable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'cancelar_recebimento' for received payments) or when not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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