sei_cancelar_assinatura

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

Description discloses that SEI API has no direct endpoint, so the tool forces a minimal edit to trigger automatic signature removal. This adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) about the workaround behavior. It does not elaborate on output schema or potential side effects.

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?

Description is concise (6 lines) with clear structure: purpose, accepted parameter format, workaround explanation, limitation, and alternative action. No superfluous content, though could be slightly tighter.

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 and existence of an output schema, the description covers essential behavioral aspects: what it does, how it works, parameter format, limitations, and fallback. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter id_documento. Description adds that it accepts 'id interno ou número SEI (protocoloFormatado)', providing format guidance that compensates for 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?

Description clearly states the tool attempts to cancel (derrubar) the signature of a document, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sei_assinar_documento (sign) and sei_listar_assinaturas (list signatures).

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?

Description provides limitation (only works if process not sent/read) and alternative (manual cancellation via web UI). It implies when to use and what to do on failure, but does not explicitly compare to other tools or give a direct 'when to use this vs. that'.

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