olist_pdv_cancelar_nota_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Esta operação altera dados e exige confirmar=true', transparently disclosing that it is a mutating operation requiring confirmation. This is valuable context beyond the name, though it does not detail other side effects or 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?

Two sentences plus a link, with the purpose, endpoint, and a critical safety caution front-loaded. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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?

For a 7-param mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is thin. It provides the endpoint, mutation warning, and doc link, but lacks usage guidance and context on optional parameters. However, the schema fully describes parameters, so completeness is moderate.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds minimal parameter information beyond the confirmar=true requirement, which aligns with the schema's const. It does not clarify the estornarContas/estornarEstoque parâmetros, relying entirely on the 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 states 'Cancelar Nota via XML' (cancel invoice via XML), a specific verb+resource, and identifies the PDV scope and API endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like olist_pdv_incluir_nota_xml (include) and olist_nota_fiscal_obter (retrieve).

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 use for cancelling PDV invoices via XML but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides an endpoint and documentation link but lacks exclusions or comparisons with other cancel/note tools.

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