olist_conta_pagar_baixar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the operation alters data and requires confirmar=true, but this largely repeats the schema's confirmar description and does not explain the actual business effect, potential irreversibility, prerequisites, or side effects. The documentation link is helpful but does not substitute for inline transparency.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the action 'Baixar Conta a Pagar'. It provides endpoint, documentation link, and safety warning without excessive verbosity. However, there is a small formatting issue ('Conta a PagarAPI') and some redundancy between 'API 2.0' and the endpoint.

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?

The tool has a nested 'conta' parameter with a vague schema description ('Dados da conta conforme layout') and no output schema. The description does not clarify the required layout, the exact effect of the operation, or the return value, relying on an external documentation URL. This leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to use 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 100%, with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning; it only reinforces the schema's confirmar requirement. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 the specific verb 'Baixar' and resource 'Conta a Pagar', clearly indicating the operation of settling an accounts payable. It also provides the API endpoint 'conta.pagar.baixar', which distinctly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'olist_conta_receber_baixar' (accounts receivable).

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 explicitly states 'Esta operação altera dados e exige confirmar=true', giving clear context that this is a mutating operation requiring confirmation before execution. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand when this tool is appropriate.

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