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

Annotations indicate non-destructive, and description confirms 'não-destrutivas'. Description adds account restriction ('só contas sk_') and bulk support via charge_ids. However, it lacks detail on side effects per action (e.g., what happens to the charge).

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?

Description is relatively short but includes a bullet list of actions. The '[Flattened action: update_card]' note is confusing and adds clutter. Front-loads the main verb but lacks a clear summary.

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 actions, bulk, sibling overlap), the description is incomplete. It does not differentiate from sibling tools, explain return values (no output schema), or provide enough detail for correct invocation. Agents are likely to misuse the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains that charge_id is required and lists optional data meanings per action (e.g., capture: amount, update_due_date: { due_at }). But it does not specify the format or constraints for the 'data' parameter, and bulk behavior for data is unclear.

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 lists multiple actions (capture, retry, confirm, etc.) but the tool is named 'update_card' and includes a '[Flattened action: update_card]' note, causing confusion. Sibling tools like pagarme_charges_write_capture exist for specific actions, so the purpose of this catch-all tool is ambiguous.

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 says 'Operar cobranças' and lists actions, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specific sibling tools (e.g., pagarme_charges_write_capture). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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