Estorna (remove) uma baixa por id. Operação destrutiva, confirme antes. id é o UUID da baixa.
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'operação destrutiva' adds no new behavioral insight. It adds the concept of bulk support and the need for confirmation, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The description provides marginal additional value beyond 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 three sentences, with the action presented first. It is direct and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 simplicity (destructive, 3 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, bulk support, and a warning. However, it lacks details on return behavior, error handling, or what happens after deletion. It is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description explains that 'id' is a UUID and notes that 'ids' enables bulk execution. However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates for two of three parameters but leaves one undocumented.
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 tool 'estorna (remove) uma baixa por id', specifying the action (remove) and the resource (settlement by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'contaazul_update_settlement' and 'contaazul_list_settlements' by explicitly being a delete operation.
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 warns that it is a destructive operation and advises confirmation ('Operação destrutiva, confirme antes'). However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools are easily confused: person_write_create/person_write_update and sale_write_create/sale_write_update duplicate the same operation with an internal action flag, and authenticate vs connect both deal with connection setup. Also, list_accounts (company installs) and list_financial_accounts (bank accounts) have similar names but different meanings.
Naming patterns vary widely: verb_noun (create_budget, list_people) is mixed with noun_verb (contract_write, person_delete, product_write). The contaazul_ prefix is applied inconsistently, and standalone names like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info break the pattern. Flattened action pairs add redundant, non-idiomatic names.
With 57 tools, this server exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme count. The tool list is bloated with generic platform tools (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug) alongside dozens of domain-specific ones, making it overwhelming for agents to parse and select from.
The Conta Azul domain is well represented: people, products, services, sales, budgets, contracts, financial accounts, receivables/payables, settlements, charges, invoices, and transfers all have read/create/list operations, and most have update/cancel/delete. Minor gaps like product update/delete or service update exist due to API limitations, but the core workflows are covered.