Revisar cobrança Pix Automático

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only. The description adds that the charge must be in a state that admits alteration, which is useful but not detailed. It does not contradict annotations, but the description could better convey that the operation effectively cancels the charge (status must be 'CANCELADA').

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 concise with two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: defining the tool's function and providing usage context. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 covers the basic function. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool only cancels automatic charges, nor does it specify the required charge state or consequences of cancellation. This lack of detail could lead to misuse, making it only moderately 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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (txíd and status), providing sufficient context. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the parameters are well-defined but the tool description offers no additional semantic value.

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 that the tool reviews and adjusts allowed fields of a Pix Automatic charge, and it is used to modify the recurring charge while its state permits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pix_create_automatic_charge' and 'pix_detail_automatic_charge'. However, it could be more explicit that the only allowed modification is cancellation, as hinted by the schema.

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 adjust the recurring charge when its state allows alteration, which provides some contextual guidance. However, it does not specify when not to use it, nor does it mention alternative tools for other modifications (e.g., creating or detailing charges). The guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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