Solicitar devolução de Pix com split

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

The description states that the operation moves funds and adjusts related transfers ('movimenta recursos e ajusta os repasses relacionados'), which aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true). It adds context beyond annotations by specifying the effect on split distributions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavioral impact. It misses potential prerequisites like configuration, but overall sufficient.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the action ('Solicita a devolução de um Pix recebido que teve distribuição por split'), specifying a distinct verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'pix_devolution' which handles non-split Pix.

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 after verifying the transaction and value ('Use após conferir a transação e o valor'), providing context for safe usage. It implicitly excludes non-split refunds (handled by sibling) but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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