incluir_categoria

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 explains that OMIE validates links and rejects inclusion if they don't close, details specific constraints for parameters, and lists return fields (codigo_status, descricao_status, codigo). It lacks mention of permissions or side effects but sufficiently reveals the tool's validation and return behavior.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, bullet points for validation rules, and a closing return-value note. It is slightly long but each sentence carries useful information, making it appropriately concise for the complexity.

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 minimal schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to validate, how parameters interact, and what to expect in the response. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero description coverage, so the description compensates by adding detailed semantics for three parameters (categoria_superior, tipo_categoria, codigo_dre) including validation rules and related tools. The remaining parameters (descricao, natureza) are not explained beyond their names, but descricao is self-evident and natureza is optional, preventing a perfect score.

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 explicitly states 'Cria uma nova categoria financeira no OMIE' (Creates a new financial category in OMIE), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like alterar_categoria and incluir_grupo_categoria by focusing on creating a financial category.

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 provides explicit validation prerequisites and directs the agent to use sibling tools (listar_grupos_categoria, listar_tipos_categoria, listar_contas_dre) for checking links. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer incluir_grupo_categoria over this tool or when not to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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