Exclui orçamentos em lote por id. Operação destrutiva, confirme antes. ids é a lista de UUIDs de orçamento (a API v2 não tem exclusão por id única).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description repeats the destructive nature already indicated by the annotation (destructiveHint=true). It adds the batch deletion behavior and the API version limitation, but these are minor additions beyond what annotations already provide. No contradictions.
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 extremely concise with only two sentences, no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence provides necessary information.
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 batch delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and the key parameter. It misses the 'account' parameter and does not describe return values, but overall it is reasonably complete for the task.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'ids' parameter as a list of UUIDs, which adds value. However, the 'account' parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a gap.
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 that the tool deletes budgets in batch by ID. It uses a specific verb ('Exclui') and resource ('orçamentos'), and the detail about the API v2 lacking single ID deletion distinguishes it from any potential single-delete tool.
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 a warning ('confirme antes') implying caution, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It notes the API limitation, which hints at context, but lacks formal usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools are easily confused: person_write_create/person_write_update and sale_write_create/sale_write_update duplicate the same operation with an internal action flag, and authenticate vs connect both deal with connection setup. Also, list_accounts (company installs) and list_financial_accounts (bank accounts) have similar names but different meanings.
Naming patterns vary widely: verb_noun (create_budget, list_people) is mixed with noun_verb (contract_write, person_delete, product_write). The contaazul_ prefix is applied inconsistently, and standalone names like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and toolkit_info break the pattern. Flattened action pairs add redundant, non-idiomatic names.
With 57 tools, this server exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme count. The tool list is bloated with generic platform tools (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug) alongside dozens of domain-specific ones, making it overwhelming for agents to parse and select from.
The Conta Azul domain is well represented: people, products, services, sales, budgets, contracts, financial accounts, receivables/payables, settlements, charges, invoices, and transfers all have read/create/list operations, and most have update/cancel/delete. Minor gaps like product update/delete or service update exist due to API limitations, but the core workflows are covered.