prorrogar_boleto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., irreversible extension), required permissions, or what happens if the boleto is already paid or canceled. The one-line description only restates the action without any added context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and easy to parse, making the core purpose immediately clear.

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 mutation nature, three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential context such as how to select between the two optional title identifiers, the format of the new date, and what the response indicates about success or failure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not mention codigo_titulo, nova_data_vencimento, or codigo_titulo_integracao at all. The agent gets no guidance on how to identify the target title or what date format to use for 'nova_data_vencimento'.

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 verb 'Prorroga' (extends) and the resource 'data de vencimento do boleto de um título' (due date of a title's boleto), making it distinct from sibling tools like cancelar_boleto and gerar_boleto. The action is unambiguous and specific.

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 implies usage for extending a boleto's due date but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It is enough to infer the primary use case but not to differentiate from related operations.

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