inutilizar_nfe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It says the tool 'inutiliza' a range, but does not mention that this is typically an irreversible, government-registered operation, nor does it explain prerequisites, permissions, or consequences. This is a significant gap 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, focused sentence with an active verb and an illustrative example. It avoids fluff and front-loads the obvious action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description captures the core purpose and an example scenario, and the schema thoroughly details parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits information about expected results, error conditions, or integration behavior with SEFAZ, leaving notable gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 schema provides descriptions for all seven parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'faixa de numeração' loosely maps to numero_inicial and numero_final, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Inutiliza') and the resource ('faixa de numeração de NF-e'), with an explicit example ('falhas de sequência'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancelar_nfe, which cancel individual issued invoices, whereas this invalidates an unused range of numbers.

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 a clear context for use: numbers that will not be used (e.g., sequence failures). It implies when to use the tool, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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