Reenviar notificações webhook Pix

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

The description reveals that the configured endpoint may receive already emitted events again, which adds behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate non-idempotent and non-destructive, which aligns with this replay behavior.

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 main purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear schema, output schema exists), the description covers purpose and use case adequately. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., configured webhook), but it is largely complete.

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 schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Tipo do recurso ou da operação'). The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning, meeting 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 the tool resends Pix webhook notifications within a specified cut, distinguishing it from sibling webhook tools by specifying the use case of recovering unprocessed callbacks.

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 states 'Use to recover unprocessed callbacks,' providing a clear condition for use. However, it does not clarify when not to use or compare to similar webhook tools like pix_detail_webhook or pix_delete_webhook.

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