sei_assinar_documento

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds that authentication is automatic, cargo is mandatory for signing, and omitting cargo returns a list (branching behavior). It also explains id_documento auto-resolves. This goes beyond annotations, though rate limits or permissions are not mentioned.

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 well-structured with a first-line summary, important notes, and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy exists in the IMPORTANT section and step-by-step, but the information is valuable and not overly long.

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 complexity (branch behavior, 3 params, output schema exists), the description covers the main flow and parameter details well. It omits authentication prerequisites (though stated as automatic) and error cases beyond cargo. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains each parameter: id_documento can be internal ID or SEI number with auto-resolution, cargo is mandatory for signing and returns list if omitted, orgao defaults to a standard. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool signs a document electronically in SEI. 'Assina eletronicamente um documento no SEI' is a specific verb+resource pair, differentiating it from siblings like sei_cancelar_assinatura or sei_assinar_bloco.

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 when to use: for signing a document. It details a workflow for handling the cargo parameter (call without it to get options, ask user, call again). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like signing a block, but the context is clear.

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