Dar baixa manual em uma cobrança

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

The description discloses the write nature and financial impact ('efeito financeiro'), which aligns with annotations (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false). It adds context beyond annotations by explaining the condition for use.

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 concise sentences: the first defines the action, the second provides usage guidance. No redundant information; 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 tool's low complexity (single parameter) and presence of output schema, the description covers essential context. It mentions financial effects but could elaborate on reversibility or return values for full 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 descriptions in the input schema, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, e.g., not specifying that 'id' refers to the charge ID.

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 marks a charge as paid manually, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_charge by emphasizing it's for external payments. The title 'Dar baixa manual em uma cobrança' reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use: only when payment was received by another means and the status needs to be reflected in Efí. This provides clear context, though it doesn't mention alternatives explicitly.

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