Cancel Cashout

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the specific API path but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as irreversibility or permissions. The endpoint reference is modest extra context.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and endpoint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 1-parameter destructive operation with accurate annotations, the description and endpoint are mostly sufficient. It lacks return/error behavior details, but the low complexity and annotation coverage make the tool adequately specified.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by showing the ID in the URL template: '/v1/cashouts/{id}/cancel'. This clarifies that 'id' is the cashout identifier, adding meaning beyond the generic schema property name and format.

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 identifies the action ('Cancela saque') and the resource (cashout) with an explicit API endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_cashout, get_cashout, and simulate_cashout by specifying the cancel operation.

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 usage is implied by the action and endpoint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It is not misleading, but it lacks direct usage context.

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