br__cancel_nfse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses irreversibility, two-step confirmation process, and unverified endpoint status. This is adequate, though it could elaborate on the exact effects beyond cancellation.

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 very concise: three sentences plus a note. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds critical behavioral warnings without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, 4 required, output schema present), the description covers core behavior but lacks explicit flow explanation for the two-step confirmation. The note about unverified endpoint adds caution. Adequate for an informed agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema provides, except implicitly linking confirmation_token to the two-step process. No extra syntax or format details are given.

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 action ('Solicitar cancelamento') and the resource ('NFS-e no ADN'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like br__submit_nfse or br__generate_nfse. The irreversible nature and two-step confirmation are also mentioned, reinforcing purpose.

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 warns that cancellation is irreversible and requires a two-step confirmation (ConfirmationGate), and suggests setting BR_READ_ONLY=1 to disable. It provides implicit guidance for safe usage but does not explicitly outline when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives.

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