Atualizar boleto de uma cobrança

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that the operation modifies the charge and is contingent on the billet's state. This is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication or rate limits.

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 concise, with two sentences that cover purpose and usage context. It is front-loaded with the main action, but could be slightly more structured.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not fully specify what fields are modifiable beyond the implied 'expire_at' from the schema. The state condition is mentioned, but the tool's overall impact could be clearer.

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 meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions. It uses the vague phrase 'dados permitidos' without listing which parameters are involved.

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 that it reviews (updates) allowed data of a billet associated with a charge. The verb 'Revisa' is somewhat vague but the context of updating is clear. Among siblings, it distinguishes itself as the only tool explicitly for updating a billet.

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 tells when to use the tool ('while its state allows change'), but does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives. It implies the use case but lacks explicit exclusions.

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