cancelar_pagamento_conta_pagar

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

It discloses the core behavior (reverts the baixa) and clarifies that the identifier is the baixa, not the título. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it adds meaningful context but does not cover potential side effects or prerequisites like permissions.

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 composed of two concise sentences, each with clear purpose: the first states the action, the second clarifies the input identifier. No 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool, the description covers the main operation and input. However, it lacks parameter semantics and return value details, which are relevant given no output schema.

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 schema has two undocumented parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only states that the tool identifies the baixa, providing minimal context for the parameters, and does not differentiate 'codigo_baixa' from '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 states a specific action ('Cancela/estorna o pagamento') and the resource ('conta a pagar'), and clarifies the effect ('revertendo a baixa'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cancelar_recebimento' by focusing on accounts payable and the baixa identifier.

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 explicitly instructs to identify the 'baixa' returned by 'lancar_pagamento' rather than the 'título', providing a clear when-not rule. This guidance helps the agent select the right input and avoid confusion with other tools.

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