CRM criar conta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It reveals a write-permission requirement, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, idempotency, required fields, errors, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is minimal and insufficient.

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 very terse (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose, but the brevity comes at the cost of essential information. It is concise but under-specified, making it only minimally acceptable.

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, arbitrary object parameter, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to convey what data the 'conta' object needs, what happens on success or failure, or any authentication or prerequisite details beyond the env variable.

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 0%, and the only parameter 'conta' is a fully open object with additionalProperties=true. The description does not explain what properties the 'conta' object should contain, so an agent has no idea how to construct a valid input. This is a critical gap.

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 ('Cria/atualiza conta') and the resource ('no CRM'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like crm_criar_contato (contact) and crm_criar_atividade (activity). Even though 'conta' is ambiguous (account vs. bill), the CRM context and sibling differentiation make the intent obvious.

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 a prerequisite (ELEVOR_ALLOW_WRITES=true) but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not explicitly say 'use this for accounts' or contrast with siblings, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.

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