Associar link de pagamento a uma cobrança

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

The description says 'cria e associa', which aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation. It adds context about forwarding the payer to checkout, enhancing the understanding of the tool's behavior beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and context. Every sentence adds value with no redundant 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?

The description mentions the prerequisite ('transação previamente criada') and the two-step flow. With output schema present and complete parameter docs, the description adequately covers the tool's role, though it could briefly note that the 'id' parameter refers to the existing transaction.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameter details. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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 tool's action ('cria e associa um link de pagamento') and the context ('a uma transação previamente criada'). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'fluxo em duas etapas', which sets it apart from one-step tools like 'create_one_step_link'.

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 says 'Use para concluir o fluxo em duas etapas', indicating when to use this tool. It implies that it is the second step after charge creation. However, it does not state when not to use or mention alternative tools explicitly.

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