cancelar_boleto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only uses the word 'Cancela' (cancels) but does not mention side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or whether the entire title is affected or just the payment slip. This is a significant gap 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 a single short sentence with no redundant words, making it efficient. However, its brevity omits critical details, but for what it includes, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the action.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the cancellation process, return behavior, or how to choose the correct identifier, which is a key usability 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 0%, and the description adds no information about the two parameters. It does not explain the difference between codigo_titulo and codigo_titulo_integracao, nor which should be used, whether both are accepted, or how they relate to the boleto/título.

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 ('Cancela') and the resource ('boleto de um título de contas a receber'), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like gerar_boleto, prorrogar_boleto, and cancelar_pix.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist (e.g., boleto must be unpaid), or any exclusions. The description merely states the basic action without contextualizing appropriate usage.

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