Criar ou substituir configuração de split Pix

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description confirms the mutation ('cria ou substitui') and adds context about future links. However, it does not elaborate on the effect of replacement (e.g., overwriting existing config) beyond the word 'substitui'.

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 action, and contains no extraneous information. 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 rich schema and annotations, the description sufficiently captures the tool's purpose and usage context. It explains the key differentiator (custom identifier) and notes future links. Minor omission: no explicit mention of idempotent or destructive behavior beyond 'substitui', but annotations cover that.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only references the identifier in the context of the tool's purpose. Baseline score 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 tool creates or replaces a split configuration with a chosen identifier. It specifies the action ('cria ou substitui') and the resource ('configuração de split'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on charges or list configs.

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 tells when to use the tool: when the application needs to control the identifier. It also notes that future links will use the resulting definition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like pix_split_config (which may create without a specific id).

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