get_renewal_campaign_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is create-or-get and idempotent, and requires write scope. However, it does not mention the return value (the link) or potential side effects beyond creation, which is a notable gap for a mutating operation.

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 extremely concise with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and key characteristics (idempotent, write scope) in a single sentence. Every phrase 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 tool's complexity (create-or-get mutation), the lack of an output schema, and zero annotation coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits what the tool returns (the link) and does not clarify parameter semantics, which an agent needs to call 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% and the description does not explain the two parameters. It only gives general context that the link is for a customer in a campaign, leaving campaign_id and external_id ambiguous. This is insufficient for an agent to know exactly what values to pass.

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 'cria-ou-obtém' (create-or-get), the resource (renewal link for a customer in a campaign), and notes idempotency. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_renewal_link and list_renewal_campaign_links, which have different behaviors.

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 mentions the prerequisite of 'write scope' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies this is the appropriate tool when you need an idempotent create-or-get behavior, but does not name sibling tools or exclusions.

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