cancelar_recebimento

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the mutating effect ('revertendo a baixa') but does not mention permissions, idempotency, side effects on associated records, or error conditions. This is a partial disclosure, adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The key distinction (identifies 'baixa', not 'título') is front-loaded, making the description efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Despite being a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description captures the essential purpose and input source. However, it omits guidance on parameter selection (both are optional in the schema) and result expectations, leaving gaps for an agent to properly invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not name the parameters 'codigo_baixa' or 'codigo_baixa_integracao'. It only hints that the 'baixa' code is the identifier, leaving ambiguity about which parameter to use and their relationship. The description inadequately compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 it cancels/reverses the receipt of an accounts receivable and reverts the write-off, with a specific verb ('Cancela/estorna') and resource ('conta a receber'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'lancar_recebimento' and 'cancelar_pagamento_conta_pagar' by explicitly clarifying it targets the 'baixa' (write-off), not the title.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the tool identifies the 'baixa' returned by 'lancar_recebimento', guiding the agent on when to use it (to reverse a receipt) and what input to supply. It does not explicitly exclude alternative reversal tools, but the reference to 'lancar_recebimento' gives a strong contextual signal.

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