feegow_create_voucher

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It mentions HTTP POST and changes data ('altera dados'), but lacks details on idempotency, error states, or side effects.

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 sentence with self-contained information, front-loading the purpose. However, the mix of Portuguese and English and inline HTTP endpoint adds slight clutter.

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?

Given no output schema, the tool is well-described for its complexity. It includes the HTTP endpoint and required environment variable. Return value is not explained, but that's acceptable for a create tool.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., date format, tipoValor meaning), but most semantics are already in the schema.

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 tool creates a discount voucher (cupom) and specifies the value type (V or P) and date format. This distinguishes it from siblings like feegow_cancel_voucher, feegow_edit_voucher, and feegow_list_vouchers.

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?

It notes the write operation and requirement for FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true, providing context. While it doesn't explicitly list when to use alternatives, it implies this is for creation only.

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