cancelar_pix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'cancela' (cancels) and gives no information about side effects (e.g., whether it deletes the record, requires a specific status, or is reversible), nor what happens to the 'excluir' flag.

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?

A single, grammatically correct sentence with no fluff. It is efficient and easy to parse, but the extreme brevity veers into under-specification rather than genuine conciseness; still, it earns a 4 for being concise without being verbose.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It states the core action but omits essential context about parameters, preconditions, and return behavior, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters (id_pix, excluir, codigo_integracao). The agent is left without any semantic clue beyond the bare schema field names, so this dimension is severely under-served.

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 'Cancela uma cobrança PIX' clearly states the specific action (cancel) and resource (PIX charge). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like gerar_pix, obter_pix, and cancelar_boleto by explicitly naming the PIX charge context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other cancel operations (e.g., cancelar_boleto, cancelar_recebimento) or any prerequisites. It simply states the action without usage context or exclusions.

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