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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=false), the description adds context: 'só contas sk_' (account restriction) and 'Bulk support: accepts charge_ids for batched execution.' It also indicates actions require charge_id and data is optional. This provides useful behavioral insight beyond the schema and annotations.

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 somewhat verbose, listing all possible actions when the tool is specifically for confirm. This information is better placed in the respective sibling tools. The flattened action note and bulk support are relevant, but the extra action list could be trimmed for focus.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values or expected outcomes. It does not. Also missing are prerequisites (e.g., charge must exist) and effects of confirmation. For a 4-parameter tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions charge_id (required), data (optional for some actions), account, and charge_ids (bulk), but does not explain data or account fields. The parameter semantics are minimally described, leaving 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 clearly states it operates on charges in Pagar.me V5 with a confirm action (flattened action: confirm). It also notes it's non-destructive and for accounts with sk_. However, it lists other actions (capture, retry, etc.) which may cause confusion about this tool's specific role, especially since sibling tools exist for those actions.

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 implies usage for confirming charges and mentions bulk support via charge_ids, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pagarme_charges_write_capture or pagarme_charges_write_retry. Lack of when-not or explicit comparison reduces clarity.

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