Atualizar metadados de um carnê

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true (modifies data) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that it does not create a new carnet or alter installment payments, which clarifies the scope of modification. No contradictions 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 consists of two sentences: the first states the action, the second provides use case context. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly more concise. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (update metadata with two parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and what actions are not taken. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.

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 input schema already documents all parameters (id, custom_id, notification_url). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 updates integration metadata of an existing carnet (payment plan). It specifies the use case: correcting references or notification information without recreating the carnet or altering installment payments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_carnet, update_carnet_parcel, etc.

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 explicit guidance: use this to fix integration metadata without recreating the carnet or affecting installments. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools. However, the positive context is clear and helpful.

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