Revisar cobrança Pix com vencimento

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: updates are contingent on the charge state allowing changes, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions found.

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, no waste. First sentence states action and identifier, second sentence specifies usage condition. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (many nested parameters, extensive siblings), the description is minimal. It does not explain allowed fields, partial updates, or error conditions. Output schema exists but does not compensate for missing context on usage scope.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'campos permitidos' is vague; the schema details all fields).

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 updates an existing due Pix charge identified by txid, using the verb 'Revisa' (reviews/updates) and specifying 'campos permitidos' (allowed fields). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pix_create_due_charge (create) and pix_detail_due_charge (read) by focusing on modification.

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 provides a usage condition: 'enquanto seu estado admitir mudanças' (while its state allows changes). However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives like pix_update_charge or pix_update_due_charge_batch, which are present among siblings.

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