cancelar_recebimento

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation reverses a write-off ('revertendo a baixa') and that it identifies the baixa rather than the title, which is key behavioral information. However, it omits details about idempotency, errors, or side effects beyond the reversal.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the action and immediately provides the key distinction, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The core purpose is well covered, but the description leaves ambiguity around the two optional parameters—whether one is required, which takes precedence, and what happens if both are provided. There is also no output schema or mention of return behavior, though the tool is relatively simple.

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?

The description adds essential meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the parameters refer to the baixa code returned by 'lancar_recebimento', not the title. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it doesn't clarify the relationship between 'codigo_baixa' and 'codigo_baixa_integracao'.

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/estorna o recebimento de uma conta a receber' and its effect 'revertendo a baixa'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it targets recebimento and uses the baixa identifier, not the título.

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 provides usage context by stating the baixa is returned by 'lancar_recebimento', implying this tool should be used after that one. The 'não o título' clause explicitly warns against using a title identifier, giving a clear when-not example.

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