feegow_remove_payment

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'altera dados' (alters data) and requires a write flag, indicating a mutation. It also shows the HTTP DELETE method. However, it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., irreversibility, cascading deletions) or error behavior, which would be beneficial for a write operation.

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 a single sentence with clear categorical brackets ([Financeiro], [ESCRITA — altera dados]) and the HTTP endpoint. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning.

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 simple removal tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential context: the action, HTTP method, and permission requirement. It is sufficient for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and invoke it correctly, though additional details on error handling or idempotency would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage: paymentId is described as 'ID do pagamento que será removido.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The body and query parameters are generic, and the description offers no extra clarifications on parameter types or constraints.

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 'Remove um pagamento a partir do seu ID' (removes a payment by its ID), clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling removal tools (e.g., feegow_remove_invoice) by naming 'pagamento' (payment).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., payment must exist) or exclude scenarios. The only usage hint is the FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true requirement, but no context on when not to use it.

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