gerar_pix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a write operation ('Gera') but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or any consequences of creating a charge. The optional association with a title is mentioned, but behavioral traits like idempotency or external notifications are absent.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, and it does not repeat any structured data. This is an example of high efficiency.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is severely under-specified. It provides no information about return values, error conditions, or usage prerequisites. The tool's complexity demands a more detailed description to be adequately usable.

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 compensate. The phrase 'associada ou não a um título de contas a receber' hints that codigo_titulo is an optional receivable title ID, but the other 6 parameters (valor, cnpj_cpf, url_notificacao, etc.) are left unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema field names.

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 action ('Gera' = generates) and the resource ('cobrança PIX' = PIX charge), with a qualifier about associating with an accounts receivable title. This distinguishes it from siblings like cancelar_pix (cancel) or gerar_qrcode_pix_estatico (static QR code), both different operations.

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 implies the tool is used to create PIX charges, optionally linked to an account receivable title ('associada ou não a um título de contas a receber'). However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions, nor does it mention alternative tools for static QR codes or other related actions.

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