feegow_pay_movement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool alters data and requires a specific environment variable, and notes amount is in centavos. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it update invoice status?), error conditions, idempotency, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a write tool.

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, consisting of one informative sentence plus metadata in brackets. It front-loads the core purpose. However, the metadata (write indication, endpoint) could be integrated more naturally. Still, it achieves brevity without sacrificing critical information.

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 the tool's complexity (write operation with nested parameters) and lack of output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like or any success indicators. It does not cover return values or post-payment effects. It is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for informed invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new information beyond the schema: it reiterates that amount is in centavos and frames the operation as payment. The schema already documents each parameter's purpose, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Realiza o pagamento de uma conta (parcela/movement) vinculada a uma invoice.' The verb 'Realiza o pagamento' indicates the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other payment-related sibling tools like feegow_pay_booking or feegow_remove_payment, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 mentions that this is a write operation requiring FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true, which gives some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist (e.g., invoice must have an unpaid movement), or when not to use it. This leaves the agent with incomplete usage context.

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