lancar_recebimento

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., marking the receivable as paid), reversibility, or required authorizations. This is a significant gap 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, concise sentence, which is economical. However, it lacks any structure such as examples, parameter hints, or links to related tools. While not wordy, it is so sparse that it offers little beyond the tool name.

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 financial operation with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the operation's effect on the accounts receivable, the meaning of required fields, or any validation rules. This is far below the minimum viable context.

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%, so the description was expected to compensate. It adds no information about the 10 parameters, leaving fields like 'juros', 'multa', 'desconto' unexplained in context. The agent must rely on names alone, which is insufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Registra' - registers) and clearly identifies the resource ('recebimento (baixa) de uma conta a receber' - receipt/write-off of an accounts receivable). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lancar_pagamento' (register payment) and 'cancelar_recebimento' (cancel receipt), 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the receivable must exist) or provide context such as 'use after payment is received.' No exclusions or alternative references are given, so the agent lacks decision support.

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