sei_cancelar_disponibilizacao_bloco

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive mutation. The description adds that the block returns to open and becomes editable again, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose any authorization requirements or potential side effects, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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?

Two sentences, directly addressing the action and its consequence. Every word is valuable, no redundancy. Information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (single parameter), the description covers the basic behavior. However, it lacks details on output (though output schema exists), error conditions, or prerequisites. The openWorldHint suggests side effects not mentioned. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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% and the tool description does not explain the single parameter 'id_bloco'. With no parameter documentation, an agent cannot infer its format or purpose beyond the name. The description must compensate for low coverage but fails to do so.

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 verb 'cancels' and the resource 'availability of a signature block', and explains the effect (returns to open state for editing). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'disponibilizar_bloco_assinatura' (makes available) and 'excluir_bloco_assinatura' (deletes).

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 a clear cause-effect but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., block must be in 'disponibilizado' state) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tools mentioned.

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