Start Payment Link

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what side effects occur, whether confirmation is needed, or any rate limits. It merely restates the action without enriching the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so sparse that it borders on under-specification, but as a concise statement it performs well.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, a destructive action, and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It omits any explanation of the payment method, buyer information, or expected result. It provides only the basic action and endpoint, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.

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 0%, placing the full burden on the description. The description only reveals that 'token' appears in the endpoint path, but does not explain the meaning or usage of 'method', 'buyerName', 'buyerEmail', or 'buyerPhone'. With five parameters and no parameter semantics provided, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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's action: 'Inicia cobrança de payment link' (starts a payment link charge) and identifies the resource as a payment link. It also provides the specific endpoint, which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_payment_link, though the verb 'start' implies an action rather than a read.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without any usage direction.

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