Atualizar metadados de uma cobrança

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether it overwrites existing metadata or if it requires specific authentication or permissions. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not supplement them.

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 sentences: one clearly defines what the tool does, the other provides a usage guideline. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., charge must exist, status requirements) and the effect of updates on other fields, which would be helpful for a destructive mutation 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?

Description mentions 'referência própria' and 'URL de notificação', which correspond to the schema parameters custom_id and notification_url. Since schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes these parameters, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 it updates integration metadata of an existing charge, specifically referencing custom_id and notification_url. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_charge_link or update_carnet_metadata by focusing on metadata fields, but could be more explicit about which tools it differs from.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use para corrigir o vínculo com o sistema integrador.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the many sibling update tools, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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