incluir_grupo_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 does add useful context by disclosing that OMIE auto-generates the group code ('1.xx' for receita, '2.xx' for despesa) and returns it in 'codigo'. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like permission requirements, idempotency, or error handling, so it is only partially transparent.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. It introduces the core function, clarifies the group's role in the hierarchy, and notes the auto-generated code behavior without any wasteful filler.

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?

The tool is a simple create operation with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose and the auto-generated code, but it fails to define what 'tipo_grupo' or 'natureza' mean, what valid values they accept, or how they relate to the revenue/expense distinction. This leaves significant gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (descricao, tipo_grupo, natureza). It only mentions the auto-generated 'codigo' output, which is not a parameter. The description offers virtually no help in understanding what values to provide for each parameter, leaving the agent to guess from the schema alone.

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 the tool creates a 'grupo totalizador de categorias' (a totalizing category group), which is distinct from creating a simple category (incluir_categoria). It uses a specific verb ('Cria') and resource, and explains the group's role as a future 'categoria_superior', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 implies when to use this tool by explaining that the group is the level used as 'categoria_superior' for categories. This gives clear context that it is for parent groups, not individual categories. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool (like incluir_categoria) or state 'when not to use', so it falls short of a 5.

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