sei_concluir_bloco_assinatura

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool modifies data but is not destructive. The description adds version availability and error suggestion but does not explain what 'concluir' entails (e.g., locks the block, changes status). There is no contradiction with 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 extremely concise with two short sentences and a version line. The primary action is front-loaded. Every sentence provides relevant information without redundancy.

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 (one parameter, straightforward action), the description covers the basic purpose and input format. However, it omits details about the output (though an output schema exists) and lacks guidance on when to conclude a block. It is adequate but could be more complete with usage context.

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?

The input schema has no description for the single parameter 'ids_blocos' (0% coverage). The description clarifies that IDs are separated by commas, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify the format of the IDs (e.g., numbers, UUIDs) or any constraints.

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 action ('Conclui bloco(s) de assinatura') with a specific verb and resource. It adds details like comma-separated IDs and version information. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sei_disponibilizar_bloco_assinatura' or 'sei_assinar_bloco', though the name implies a distinct concluding action.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after disponibilizar or after assinar). It lacks prerequisites, postconditions, or contextual guidance. The only additional info is a version requirement and a troubleshooting tip, which are not usage guidelines.

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