Desfazer antecipação

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the danger profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that by saying exactly what is mutated (installments are returned to their original period) and by flagging the confirm gate. It stops short of disclosing whether the operation deletes the anticipation record, whether it can be partially applied (installmentIds is a subset list), or what happens if confirm is omitted — and the schema marks confirm as optional with no default, which sits awkwardly with 'Exige'.

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 short sentences, effect stated first, precondition second, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, four-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the definition is thin. It never states whether the undo is itself reversible, what error surfaces on an invalid or already-undone anticipation, or how the three UUID identifiers relate to one another.

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%, so the description carries full burden, yet it only explains `confirm` and leaves seriesId, anticipationId and installmentIds completely undocumented. The critical question — whether installmentIds may be a subset of the anticipation or must cover all of it — is left entirely unaddressed, which matters for a destructive call.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Desfaz uma antecipação') and states the concrete effect ('devolvendo as parcelas ao período original'), which clearly distinguishes it as the inverse of an anticipation action. It never names the forward tool (e.g. anticipate_installments) it undoes, so sibling differentiation is implied by the name rather than stated.

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 use case is inferable — call this to revert a previously created anticipation — and a precondition is stated ('Exige confirm: true'). However, there is no guidance on when the operation is permitted, what state the anticipation must be in, or what to do instead if the undo is not possible.

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