sei_disponibilizar_bloco_assinatura

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description only states the action without detailing behavioral traits such as permissions required, reversibility, or side effects (openWorldHint=true is unaddressed). The description adds minimal value beyond the 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the action. It is efficient but could benefit from including parameter details without becoming verbose.

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 low parameter count and lack of schema descriptions, the description fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., block must exist), the meaning of 'unidades configuradas', or the output schema. The agent is left with incomplete context for correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'id_bloco' has no description in the schema (coverage 0%). The tool description does not explain this parameter, relying solely on the parameter name for meaning. It should clarify what identifier is expected and how to obtain it.

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 verb 'Disponibiliza' (makes available) and the resource 'bloco de assinatura' (signature block) for configured units. It distinguishes the action from similar sibling tools like 'criar' or 'incluir documento' by focusing on availability, but could be more explicit about how it differs from 'cancelar_disponibilizacao'.

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 context about the tool's role in the signing workflow ('Após disponibilizar, os usuários das unidades podem assinar os documentos'), implying it is used before signing. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like 'assinar_bloco' or 'criar_bloco_assinatura'.

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