cancel_activationCancel a virtual phone number activation that has not received an SMS yet and refund the amount to your balance. Does not work once the verification code has arrived.
Cancela uma ativacao que ainda nao recebeu SMS e devolve o valor ao saldo. Nao funciona depois que o codigo chegou.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID da ativacao. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key side effect (the amount is returned to the balance) and the precondition, but says nothing about idempotency, error behavior when the precondition is violated, or whether the cancellation is permanent.
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 with zero waste; the scope condition is stated before the failure condition, keeping the important information front-loaded.
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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: the refund side effect and the SMS precondition. It falls short only on failure/idempotency behavior, which an agent could otherwise need.
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 100%, so the single `id` parameter is already documented in the schema with its type and constraint. The description adds no format, source, or lookup detail beyond the schema baseline.
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 names a specific verb (cancela) and resource (ativacao) and adds the decisive scope constraint that it only applies before an SMS arrives. This cleanly separates it from siblings like complete_activation and wait_for_sms without ambiguity.
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?
It gives an explicit when-it-works condition ("ainda nao recebeu SMS") and an explicit when-it-fails condition ("Nao funciona depois que o codigo chegou"). It does not name the alternative tool to use once the code arrives, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.