Criar cobrança Pix Automático com txid

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool creates a charge linked to an existing recurrence, which aligns with annotations. No contradictions, but it could mention prerequisites like the recurrence must exist.

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, front-loaded with the action and target. It is concise and efficient, though it could include a brief note on prerequisites without adding noise.

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 objects, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and usage context, but could explicitly state that an existing recurrence is required (implied by 'já estabelecido').

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%, with each parameter and subfield having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already adequately documents all parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool creates a charge linked to a recurring Pix Automatic using a receiver-defined txid. It distinguishes from siblings like pix_create_automatic_charge (which likely does not use a txid) by highlighting the txid involvement.

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 advises using this tool to schedule a charge for an already established recurring agreement, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., pix_create_automatic_charge without txid).

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