Atualizar configurações da conta Pix

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, establishing that the tool modifies data. The description adds context that changes affect future transactions, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like permissions or side effects. The description is consistent with annotations.

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 and relatively concise. It front-loads the purpose and includes key information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) and the title is in Portuguese while the tool name is in English, but that is not a major detriment.

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 complex nested schema and presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It states the general effect ('afeta transações futuras') but does not explain the output or provide examples. For a tool with this complexity, more detail 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema alone documents all parameters. However, many schema descriptions are tautological, repeating the field name. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 verb ('cria ou modifica') and the resource ('regras de recebimento e notificação Pix da conta ou de chaves específicas'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying account-level Pix config update, which is distinct from other config tools like pix_config_webhook or of_config_update.

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 says 'Use para controlar formas aceitas de recebimento' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use it. Among many sibling config tools, some guidance on when to choose this over others would be beneficial.

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