lancar_pagamento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (records payment) and does not mention side effects such as whether the account payable is marked as paid, whether the operation is irreversible, or whether it validates amounts. For a financial mutation tool, this is a significant transparency 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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is easily scannable.

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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, expected return values, preconditions, or side effects, making it difficult 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides no parameter information at all. It fails to clarify the meaning or usage of fields like 'conciliar_documento', 'codigo_lancamento_omie', or 'codigo_lancamento_integracao', leaving the agent without the necessary context to correctly populate parameters.

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 'Registra o pagamento (baixa) de uma conta a pagar' clearly identifies the action (register payment/settlement) and resource (accounts payable). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lancar_recebimento' (record receipt) and 'cancelar_pagamento_conta_pagar' (cancel payment), 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 description implies usage: use when you need to record a payment against an accounts payable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the account payable must already exist) or exclusions (e.g., not for receivables).

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