Activate or deactivate a customer's access to the helpdesk panel and email tickets. Set the active flag using internal ID or email to control permissions.
ATENCAO: altera producao. Ativa ou desativa o acesso do cliente ao painel e chamados por email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| active | Yes | 1 ativo, 0 inativo. | |
| customer_id | Yes | Id interno ou email do cliente. | |
| customer_type_id | No | I = id interno, E = email. Padrao I. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 does disclose that the tool mutates production and toggles customer access to the panel and email tickets, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or the outcome of changing the 'active' 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?
The description is extremely concise: a prominent production-change warning followed by a single clear sentence stating the action. Every word earns its place, and the warning is appropriately front-loaded.
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 tool is simple, the schema covers all parameters, and there is no output schema to explain. The description conveys the core behavior and the production-impact warning, but it lacks usage guidance, alternative-tool routing, and any sense of what happens after the call, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when the schema handles the parameter documentation.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Ativa ou desativa o acesso do cliente ao painel e chamados por email' (enables/disables customer access to the panel and tickets by email). This is specific enough to understand the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from related customer-permission siblings like tomticket_set_customer_create_tickets or tomticket_customer_quick_access.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'ATENCAO: altera producao' warning implies a production-impacting mutation, but no contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.