create_payment_method_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the link is single-use, expires in 7 days, and incurs no charge. It also labels the scope as 'write' (Escopo write), indicating a mutation. Missing details like permissions or reversibility are minor given the specific business constraints already disclosed.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists key constraints. It is efficient and well-structured with no filler 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description does not explain subscription_id or what the tool returns. It does not mention the response format (e.g., the link itself) or any prerequisites. The core action is clear but essential operational details are missing.

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?

The only parameter, subscription_id, has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent must infer that the link is generated for the given subscription, but this is not explicit. The description fails to add any meaning to the parameter beyond its name.

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 verb 'Gera' (generates), the resource 'link para o cliente trocar de forma de pagamento' (link for the customer to change payment method), and adds specific properties (no charge, single-use, 7 days). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_payment_link (retrieve vs create) and create_renewal_link (renewal vs payment method change).

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 gives clear context: it is for generating a link so a customer can change their payment method. It also states constraints (no charge, single-use, 7 days). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool when a customer requests a payment method change.

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