Revisar recorrência de extrato CNAB 240

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by stating changes affect future generations. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, but the description clarifies the scope of the mutation. No contradictions.

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, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficient and well-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?

The description, combined with the schema and output schema (present), adequately covers the tool's purpose and effects. It could include more detail on prerequisites or constraints, but it is sufficient for an update operation.

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 already documents each parameter. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema, only hinting at which parameters relate to frequency or delivery. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('atualiza' - updates) and the resource ('recorrência de extrato CNAB 240'). It explicitly mentions adjusting frequency or delivery, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_statement_recurrency and list_statement_recurrences.

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 states to use it for adjusting frequency or delivery and notes that changes affect future generations. It implies it is for existing recurrences but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough given sibling tools.

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