Revisar recorrência de Pix Automático

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

The description uses the term 'revisar' (review), which understates the destructive nature indicated by the annotation destructiveHint=true. It does not disclose potential side effects, such as cancellation or irreversible changes, nor explain what 'state still allows modification' means.

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, efficiently conveying purpose and usage condition without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool is destructive and has complex parameters; the description could include more details on prerequisites or consequences to be fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already in Portuguese and sufficiently detailed.

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 reviews allowed fields of an Automatic Pix recurrence and adjusts an existing agreement. It specifies the resource (Pix Automático recurrence) and the action (revisar campos), distinguishing it from creation or detail tools.

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 condition for use: when the existing agreement needs adjustment and its state still allows modification. This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or when not to use it.

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