Revisar cobranças de um lote Pix

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the operation is non-destructive to untouched items ('preservando as demais cobranças'), providing useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or error conditions, which would raise the score further.

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 the core action, and no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a tool with a rich schema and output schema. It covers the main purpose and usage pattern but omits details like batch existence prerequisites or error handling. Given the complexity of nested objects, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 each parameter well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Revisa cobranças específicas dentro de um lote Pix com vencimento' (review/update specific charges in a Pix batch). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pix_create_due_charge_batch (create batch) and pix_update_due_charge (update single charge) by focusing on partial updates within a batch.

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 clear usage context: 'Use para alterar somente os itens informados, preservando as demais cobranças do lote' (use to change only specified items, preserving others). It implies the tool is for partial updates but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, hence not a 5.

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