Cancelar pedido

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that this is a cancel operation and mentions the write flag, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., irreversible action, status changes, stock updates), return values, error conditions, or whether it is idempotent. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the main action and then stating the production requirement. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

With a single required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should cover key behavioral and return aspects. It states the core action and a prerequisite, but omits what the response looks like, whether cancellation is reversible, and any side effects. For a write operation, this is incomplete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says 'por id' (by id), which clarifies that the 'id' parameter is the identifier of the order/pre-sale. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'id' field, but it does not elaborate on format or constraints. It is minimally adequate.

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 verb 'Cancela' (cancel) and the resource 'pedido/pré-venda' (order/pre-sale), and mentions it operates by id. This makes the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like pedido_alterar_status, but the action is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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 prerequisite: 'PRODUÇÃO — requer ELEVOR_ALLOW_WRITES=true.' This is useful usage guidance, indicating that in production the flag must be set for writes. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pedido_alterar_status or pedido_criar_v2, leaving some inference required.

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