Criar cliente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a requirement (ELEVOR_ALLOW_WRITES) but does not disclose what happens on success, whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what the return value is. For a write operation, this is a significant gap in behavioral context beyond the simple fact that it creates a client.

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, compact sentence that conveys the purpose and a key requirement without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary action. While more detail is needed, the existing text is appropriately concise for what it covers.

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 nested object parameter, no output schema, and complete absence of annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits essential information about parameter structure, return behavior, error handling, and prerequisites beyond the one environmental flag, making correct invocation highly unlikely.

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?

The only parameter 'cliente' is an object with additionalProperties allowed and zero schema descriptions. The description offers no explanation of expected fields, structure, or required sub-attributes. With 0% schema coverage, the description must fully compensate but fails to provide any guidance, leaving the agent to guess the object's shape.

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 states a clear action (register) and resource (customer) within the ERP context. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'cliente_atualizar' (update) and 'cliente_get' (retrieve) by virtue of the verb 'cadastra', even though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cliente_atualizar' or 'crm_criar_conta'. The production note about ELEVOR_ALLOW_WRITES is an environment prerequisite, not a usage discriminator, and no exclusions or alternative contexts are mentioned.

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