Br Cancel Nfse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that cancellation is irreversible, requires two-step confirmation, can be disabled via BR_READ_ONLY=1, and even flags that the endpoint and request format are unverified. This is unusually transparent for a destructive operation.

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 compact: three sentences, with the core operation first and the most critical warnings immediately after. The unverified note is valuable and does not waste space. Minor ambiguity in the BR_READ_ONLY phrasing ('desabilitar' could refer to disabling confirmation or disabling the operation) prevents a 5.

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 operation with no annotations, the description covers the essential risks and workflow constraints. The output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not required. It could more explicitly describe the full two-step flow (first call returns a token, second call uses it), but the schema's confirmation_token description partially fills this gap.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters, including ch_nfse, motivo, tp_amb, and confirmation_token. The description adds high-level context about the two-step confirmation but does not add detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Solicitar cancelamento de uma NFS-e no ADN.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling cancel tool for CT-e (br__cancel_cte) and from NF-e operation tools. The title reinforces but does not replace the description.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, though the resource 'NFS-e' makes the context largely self-evident. It mentions the ConfirmationGate and BR_READ_ONLY setting but does not explain under what conditions an agent should invoke this tool or when it should not.

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