Configurar webhook de pagamentos de contas

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether the webhook replaces an existing one or requires authentication. It does not contradict annotations but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 consists of two concise sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage without superfluous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple webhook configuration tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on behavioral effects (e.g., destructive overwriting) and verification steps, leaving some gaps in contextual 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 the schema already describes the parameters. The description only mentions 'URL' generically without adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Endereço eletrônico usado pela operação.' This meets the baseline of 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 'Configura a URL que receberá atualizações sobre pagamentos de contas', specifying the action (configures URL) and domain (bill payments). It distinguishes from sibling webhook tools like pix_config_webhook by focusing on 'pagamentos de contas'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use após preparar o endpoint de callback seguro para acompanhar mudanças de estado', providing a clear prerequisite. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for the agent to understand the appropriate scenario.

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