incluir_lancamento_bancario

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'Cria' (creates) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or how debit/credit is determined. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the action. It contains no redundancy or wasted words.

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 tool has 10 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or parameter semantics, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke 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 description provides no explanation for any of the 10 parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at debit/credit without linking it to a specific parameter like 'valor' or 'tipo_documento'.

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 action ('Cria') and the resource ('lançamento manual em conta corrente'), and specifies the scope ('débito ou crédito'). This distinguishes it from sibling read/delete tools like listar_lancamentos_bancarios or excluir_lancamento_bancario.

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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'lancar_pagamento' or 'lancar_recebimento'. The description only states what the tool does, not the context or conditions for its use.

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