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

The description mentions 'mutações' (mutations) and lists actions, but for switch_plan it only says 'troca o plano' with reference to external documentation. Without annotations providing safety hints (destructiveHint=false), the description fails to disclose consequences, reversibility, or side effects beyond the minimal statement.

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 relatively short but includes irrelevant details about other actions not relevant to this tool's primary function. The phrase '[Flattened action: switch_plan]' helps, but listing all actions is unnecessary and could confuse. It could be more focused.

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 complexity (multiple optional parameters, nested 'data' object, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks examples, required parameter combinations, and behavior specifics (e.g., what does switching plan entail? Are there prerequisites?). The tool is part of a suite, but no cross-tool context is provided.

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 description adds little. It mentions 'data com subscriber_code + novo plano' but does not clarify the structure of the 'data' object (what properties, required fields, types). Other parameters like 'charge' and 'send_mail' are not explained in context of switch_plan, leading to ambiguity.

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 it is for 'switch_plan' action, but it also lists other actions (cancel, reactivate, change_due_day), causing confusion about the tool's singular purpose. The tool name indicates a single action, but the description implies multiple actions. This muddles the core purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings like hotmart_subscriptions_write_cancel or hotmart_subscriptions_switch_plan_plans. The description does not specify context or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from name alone.

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