sei_assinar_bloco

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds transparency about automatic authentication and the critical requirement of cargo. It does not contradict 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 concise (one paragraph plus bullet points) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor repetition of cargo being mandatory, but overall effective.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to cover return values. It covers input semantics well, including authentication and parameter usage. It could mention potential failure reasons beyond missing cargo, but is sufficient for an agent.

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 0% and cargo is marked optional with a default, but the description clarifies cargo is effectively required and explains the fallback behavior (omitting it lists options). This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the exact action: signing all documents in a signature block. It distinguishes from signing individual documents by specifying 'TODOS os documentos de um bloco'. The verb 'assina' and resource 'bloco de assinatura' are clear and specific.

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 provides explicit guidance on the cargo parameter: it is mandatory, omitting it returns options, and advises the agent to ask the user and cache the value. It does not, however, compare directly with sibling signing tools like sei_assinar_documento or sei_assinar_documentos_bloco.

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