create_subaccount

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers very little. It discloses the parent-child relationship but says nothing about required permissions, whether the subaccount creation is immediate or subject to approval, what happens on duplicate e-mail, or what the created subaccount yields (e.g., a wallet/account id).

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 verb and resource first and the use-case qualifier second; nothing is redundant. It is tight, though arguably too terse given the tool's 12-parameter, 8-required surface.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the concrete return value (the subaccount identifier/wallet needed for later split configuration) and any operational caveats. An agent can identify the tool but learns little about the consequences of invoking it.

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% and all 12 parameters are documented in the schema with Portuguese labels, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cria uma subconta filha no Asaas') and adds the distinguishing use case of marketplaces/splits, which separates it from the generic create_customer sibling. It is clear, though it never names or contrasts the sibling explicitly.

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 parenthetical 'ideal para marketplaces e divisão de splits com parceiros' implies when the tool is appropriate, giving useful context. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a parent account must exist), and no named alternative.

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