create_pix_qr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at dynamism ('dinâmico', implying regenerable/changing codes) but says nothing about idempotency, whether calling it mutates the charge, whether previously generated codes are invalidated, or any permission requirements. This is a meaningful gap for a generation/mutation-style tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names both outputs, with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to be fully useful.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description should explain what comes back (QR image vs. payload string, Copia e Cola string) and any re-generation semantics. As written it names the outputs but leaves the agent without the behavioral detail needed to call it confidently.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about payment_id (e.g., where to obtain it or what charges qualify) beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (Gera) and concrete resources (QR Code dinâmico e código Copia e Cola Pix) scoped to a cobrança, so the agent knows it produces payment artifacts. It does not name the sibling get_pix_status or otherwise distinguish itself from the other Pix-related tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_pix_status or whether it is meant to be called once per charge. The only implied condition is that it acts on an existing cobrança, which the agent must infer.

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