Alternar Pagamento da Transação

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true. The description adds that it is a write operation ('Operação de escrita') and requires confirm: true, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not detail the destructive nature (e.g., what changes are irreversible) or any other behavioral traits.

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?

Two concise sentences with key information front-loaded. No redundant wording. Could include more detail without losing conciseness, but it is appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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 has 3 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the operation type and confirmation requirement but lacks usage guidelines and parameter details. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving return values unexplained.

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. It adds meaning for 'confirm' by stating it must be true to execute ('Exige confirm: true'). However, 'id' and 'date' have no additional explanation beyond the schema, leaving ambiguity about their purpose and format.

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: toggles or marks a transaction as paid on a date. The verb 'alterna' and resource 'transação' are specific, but it does not differentiate from the similar sibling 'despezzas_update_transaction' which might also modify paid status.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like despezzas_update_transaction. It only mentions the requirement for confirm: true, but not the context. Fails to provide when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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