create_customer

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of duplicate-CPF handling, idempotency, authentication needs, or that creating a customer can trigger automatic e-mail/SMS/WhatsApp notifications unless notificationDisabled is set. It only signals that this is a write operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the essential verb/resource leads. It is arguably too terse for a 12-parameter mutation, but there is no wasted text.

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 12-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what is returned, whether notifications fire by default, and how duplicate tax IDs are handled. It is not sufficient on its own for an agent to call this confidently.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's field list (CPF/CNPJ, e-mail, telefone, endereço) merely echoes the schema and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it.

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 gives a specific verb ('Cadastra') and resource ('novo cliente no Asaas') and enumerates the data categories it accepts (CPF/CNPJ, e-mail, telefone, endereço). It does not reference any sibling tool, but no sibling overlaps enough to require disambiguation, so this is clear though not maximally differentiating.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when a new customer must be registered in Asaas. There is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., account requirement, CPF/CNPJ uniqueness) or when to prefer create_subaccount or other creation tools instead.

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