feegow_cancel_voucher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation ('ESCRITA — altera dados') and requires FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true. However, it lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether cancellation is permanent, what happens to the voucher status) and does not describe the response format. The HTTP endpoint is provided, which adds context.

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 succinct: one sentence for purpose and parameter usage, plus a brief note on write behavior and the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key action and efficiently uses parentheses for additional context. 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?

For a cancellation tool with required and optional parameters, the description provides essential information: domain, action, parameter constraints, write nature, and endpoint. It does not explain return values (no output schema), but that is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand when and how to 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving examples of codigo_motivo values (ERRO_EMISSAO, OUTRO) and clarifying that observacao is conditional on codigo_motivo being 'OUTRO'. This slightly exceeds the schema's parameter descriptions, but the overall parameter guidance remains minimal.

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 explicitly states 'Cancela um voucher' (cancels a voucher), clearly identifying the action and resource. It includes domain '[Financeiro]' and HTTP endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_voucher, edit_voucher, and list_vouchers.

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 specifies that codigo_motivo must be one of the provided codes (e.g., ERRO_EMISSAO, OUTRO) and that observacao only applies when codigo_motivo is 'OUTRO'. It also notes that this is a write operation requiring FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., voucher must exist and not be already canceled) or compare it to alternatives.

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