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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so 'DESTRUCTIVO' is largely redundant. However, the description adds genuinely new behavior: deletion is permanent and irreversible, and the tool may return a pending-confirmation code requiring a user prompt and a follow-up odoo_confirm call. That deferred-execution behavior is not visible in the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its consequence, then the fallback flow. The 'DESTRUCTIVO' fragment duplicates the destructiveHint annotation and is the one piece of the text that does not earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation beyond the one exceptional case (pending code), which the description does cover. Combined with the destructive annotation and full schema coverage, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only edge cases like cascade effects on related records are unaddressed.

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% for both parameters (ids and model), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about id format, model naming, or batching limits, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Elimina registros permanentemente') and makes the permanence explicit, which distinguishes it from reversible siblings like odoo_cancel. It does not directly contrast itself with odoo_write or odoo_search_read, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional flow: if the account requires confirmation the tool returns a pending code, in which case the agent should ask the user and call odoo_confirm. That names an alternative and the condition that selects it. There is no guidance on when deletion is inappropriate (e.g. records with dependencies), so it stops short of a 5.

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