Atualizar URLs da aplicação Open Finance

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation with open-world effects. The description adds context (timing relative to payments) but does not elaborate on specific behavioral traits beyond what the annotations imply. It does not contradict 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. The first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (nested parameters, multiple annotations, output schema exists), the description is adequate. It covers the primary purpose and usage timing. The schema and annotations handle the rest. However, it could optionally mention the other parameters or potential side effects more explicitly.

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%, but the schema descriptions are somewhat repetitive and generic. The tool description adds value by explaining that redirectURL and webhookURL are for redirects and callbacks, but it does not explain other parameters like processPayment or webhookSecurity. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the description adds modest meaning.

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 specific action ('Configura as URLs') and the resource ('redirecionamentos e callbacks das jornadas Open Finance'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'of_config_detail' which retrieves config, and other payment tools.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use antes de iniciar pagamentos e somente com destinos preparados para receber o fluxo.' This tells the agent when and under what conditions to use the tool, though it does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternative tools.

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