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

Discloses meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: the action is irreversible, and with no confirmation form the tool returns the question instead of acting, so the agent must re-call it. It also warns the agent not to decide for the user. It does not cover side effects like credit refunds or what happens to partial output. 'Irreversible' sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, but that hint can reasonably mean no data is destroyed.

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-loads the purpose, then irreversibility, then the confirmation protocol, then the prohibition. Nothing is wasted, but the sentence 'Ania asks the user (confirmation form); without one, the tool returns the question' is dense and takes a second read to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the important non-obvious return case (the returned question). The main gap is what a successful cancel leaves behind: whether the job is removed, whether spend is refunded, and whether the action can be undone afterwards. It is adequate for a three-parameter tool with full schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents jobId provenance (criar_avatar or ver_andamento), the BCP-47 language tag, and the user_confirmed gate. The description reinforces the user_confirmed rule but adds little that the schema does not already say. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: cancels an in-progress creation. That clearly separates it from create_avatar, resume_avatar, and the show/hide siblings. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it lands just 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?

Gives a real usage rule: do not call it unprompted, follow the confirmation-form protocol, and pass user_confirmed: true only after an explicit yes. The exclusions are clear. It never says what to do instead of cancelling (for example, pausing via resume_avatar later), so it falls short of the top score.

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