reschedule_subscription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the key behavior that it does NOT charge, and requires a future date (ISO-8601). However, it does not disclose what happens if the subscription is inactive, whether the operation is reversible, or any error conditions. This is minimal but not comprehensive for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 two short sentences. The primary action and the critical clarification ('NÃO cobra') are front-loaded. The date constraint is stated efficiently. No wasted 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 simple write operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it does not do, and a key input constraint. It omits return value and error handling, but these are less critical for a straightforward reschedule action. It is sufficiently complete for an agent 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%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains the constraint on next_billing_at (must be future, ISO-8601) but gives no explanation for subscription_id, which is left to inference from the name. This adds value for one parameter but not the other, so a 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 states a specific action: 'Reagenda a próxima cobrança' (reschedules the next charge), and explicitly clarifies it does NOT charge. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like charge_now and other billing-related tools. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 reschedules the next billing date without charging. This clearly implies that if the intent is to charge immediately, a different tool (e.g., charge_now) should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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