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

The description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't carry: the prazo stays in history marked as cancelled with the motivo, linked tasks are marked CONCLUÍDAS, and a missing/invalid case returns ja_estava_cancelado. However, 'Cancelar um prazo já cancelado não muda nada' asserts a no-op on repetition, which directly conflicts with idempotentHint=false, and no permission/auth requirements are disclosed for a mutation on judicial deadlines.

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?

Front-loaded uppercase verb, a clarifying example, then bulleted params — the reader gets the essentials in the first sentence. The trailing 'Bulk support' line feels appended rather than integrated, but no sentence is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the important consequences: history retention, task-side effects, the idempotent-ish return flag, and bulk mode. Missing only error/permission behavior and motivo constraints; the idempotency contradiction weakens the otherwise complete picture.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must do the work, and it does for the two required params: prazo_id's origin (astrea_prazo_criar or a DEADLINE from astrea_agenda) and motivo's mandatory nature and purpose. prazo_ids is acknowledged only as 'Bulk support', leaving its interaction with prazo_id and whether motivo applies per-batch item unstated.

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 (CANCELA) plus resource (PRAZO processual) plus a distinguishing qualifier (com MOTIVO), and immediately names the sibling it is not (astrea_prazo_excluir). An agent can separate it from prazo_editar/prazo_excluir without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: use this tool, and not astrea_prazo_excluir, whenever the motivo must remain recorded. It also supplies a concrete scenario (controladoria cancels an apelação deadline because embargos de declaração are available), so the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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