sei_cassar_credenciamento

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds version constraints and error handling advice but does not disclose further behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, or reversibility.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds value: action, version dependency, and error handling. No wasted words.

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 simple revoke action with 2 parameters and annotations present, the description covers the core purpose and some context. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools and detailed parameter handling, making it adequate but not thorough.

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 description does not explain the parameters 'processo' or 'id_usuario' beyond their names. The action is described, but no additional meaning is added for proper agent usage.

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 specific action: revoking (cassar) a user's accreditation to a confidential process. It uses a strong verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like sei_conceder_credenciamento and sei_renunciar_credenciamento.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., sei_renunciar_credenciamento). It only includes version information and a troubleshooting tip, not usage context or exclusions.

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