olist_conta_pagar_incluir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing mutating behavior. It explicitly states 'Esta operação altera dados e exige confirmar=true', which is useful safety information. However, this partly duplicates the schema's const=true on confirmar, and it omits other behavioral aspects like idempotency, reversibility, or side effects beyond data mutation.

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 concise but contains redundancy: 'Incluir Conta a Pagar API 2.0' and 'Endpoint API V2: conta.pagar.incluir' convey overlapping information. The documentation link and behavioral warning are useful, but the structure could be tighter.

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?

This tool has a nested 'conta' object with no structural schema, and no output schema. The description does not explain the expected payload layout or return value, instead pointing to an external documentation URL. For an agent to invoke it correctly, more context about the 'conta' object's fields and possible business rules is needed.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'conta' and 'confirmar' have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the endpoint context, so it merits the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Incluir Conta a Pagar') and the specific API endpoint (conta.pagar.incluir). This distinguishes it from related tools like olist_conta_pagar_obter or olist_contas_pagar_pesquisa by the 'incluir' verb, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 this is for creating a new payable account, and explicitly notes that the operation alters data and requires confirm=true. However, it does not provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with sibling tools like olist_conta_pagar_baixar or olist_conta_receber_incluir.

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