Remove a department link from a customer to correct misassigned departments or update organizational structure.
ATENCAO: altera producao. Desvincula um departamento do cliente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | Id interno ou email do cliente. | |
| department_id | Yes | Identificador do departamento (enviado como configuration). | |
| 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. 'ATENCAO: altera producao' explicitly warns that this is a production-mutating operation, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose reversibility, required permissions, side effects, or what happens to existing associations, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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: one attention warning followed by a clear action statement. It front-loads the production-alteration warning and contains no filler or redundant information.
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 operation is simple and the schema fully covers all parameters, but the description omits return behavior, reversibility, and alternative routing. The production warning partially compensates for the lack of annotations, but the absence of any usage context makes this minimally complete rather than fully 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%, and the schema already documents customer_id, department_id, and customer_type_id with clear meanings. The description adds no parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific action ('Desvincula um departamento do cliente' / unlinks a department from the customer) with a clear verb and resource. It is naturally distinguished from the sibling tomticket_link_customer_department, which performs the opposite operation.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tomticket_link_customer_department. The warning 'ATENCAO: altera producao' indicates caution but does not explain prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.