carta_correcao_nfe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint (cannot correct tax-affecting fields) and the authorized NF-e prerequisite. However, it does not mention side effects, transmission to SEFAZ, or what happens on success/failure, leaving moderate gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with key constraints. It is concise with no wasted words.

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 tool with only 2 parameters, both fully described in the schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the main scope and a significant restriction. It could mention response format or transmission details, but given the simple interface, it is reasonably complete.

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% with both 'id' and 'correcao' having meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Emite' = issues) and the specific resource ('Carta de Correção (CC-e) para uma NF-e autorizada'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancelar_nfe and emitir_nfe by focusing on the correction letter use case.

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 includes explicit restrictions ('Não pode corrigir valores, CFOP, ou dados que alterem o cálculo do imposto'), which serve as when-not-to-use guidance. It also specifies the prerequisite that the NF-e must be 'autorizada'. However, it does not name alternative tools for other correction scenarios.

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