Criar plano de assinatura

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description does not add any behavioral context beyond purpose. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or what happens if a plan with the same name exists. This lack of transparency could lead to unexpected behavior.

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 two sentences, directly front-loaded with the purpose and usage guidance. No redundant words. It efficiently communicates the essential information.

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 tool has a nested input schema (body with required name and interval), an output schema, and good annotations, the description is adequate for an agent to understand when and why to use it. However, it could mention that the plan includes name, interval, and optional repeats to improve completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'periodicidade' and 'quantidade de cobranças recorrentes' which loosely map to interval and repeats, but does not explain them in detail. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, so score is 3.

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 verb 'Cria' (creates), the resource 'plano' (plan), and defines what it does: sets the periodicity and number of recurring charges. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it is used before linking clients to subscriptions that follow the same schedule, differentiating it from tools like create_subscription or list_plans.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use antes de vincular clientes a assinaturas que deverão seguir a mesma programação.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or name specific alternative tools, though the sibling list includes related plan tools.

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