novacrm_cancel_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether cancellation is reversible, whether stock/refunds are affected, or what permissions are needed. It also says the reason is provided ('informando o motivo') while the schema marks 'reason' as optional, which blurs the requirement rather than clarifying it.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain effects, irreversibility, and side effects such as stock or payment handling. None of that is present, leaving the agent insufficiently equipped to call it safely.

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 100% ('ID do pedido', 'Motivo do cancelamento'), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description only restates the reason parameter and adds no format, length, or constraint detail.

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') and resource ('um pedido'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as novacrm_update_order_status, which could plausibly also result in a cancelled order.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent is left to guess why it should cancel outright rather than change status via novacrm_update_order_status, or what prerequisites exist.

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