Criar solicitação de recorrência Pix Automático

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it creates a 'request for confirmation', implying a specific behavioral step in the recurrence journey, but does not detail side effects, triggers, or error cases. This adds some value beyond 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 consists of two concise sentences that immediately convey the action and context. There is no fluff, and every word adds value.

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 covers the purpose and usage context adequately. Since an output schema exists, return values are documented elsewhere. However, it could be improved by mentioning prerequisites or the typical workflow, but overall it provides sufficient context for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with detailed descriptions for each field. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, baseline score of 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 clearly states the action ('Cria uma solicitação de confirmação de recorrência de Pix Automático') and provides context that distinguishes it from siblings, such as the need for payer authorization before recurring charges. This differentiates it from other recurrence-related tools like pix_create_recurrence_automatic.

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 specifies when to use this tool: 'na jornada em que a autorização do pagador depende dessa solicitação antes das cobranças recorrentes'. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or provide alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand the use case.

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