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

The description discloses real side effects ("O Astrea apaga junto as TAREFAS vinculadas à audiência", new hearing_id on recreate), but it describes an irreversible deletion while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. A permanent delete that cascades to linked tasks is the textbook destructive operation, so the safety signal an agent relies on directly contradicts the prose.

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 critical scoping decision and the destructive consequence are front-loaded, and each line carries distinct information. The trailing "Bulk support" line restates the hearing_ids array already visible in the schema, so it is slightly less lean than it could be.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered: id provenance, cascade deletion of tasks, and the correct alternative tool. Not covered are the return shape and the failure behavior for partial bulk deletion, which an agent would need before batching.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does: hearing_id is traced to its sources (astrea_audiencia_criar or a HEARING from astrea_agenda), and the otherwise unexplained hearing_ids array is identified as the bulk path. It stops short of saying how hearing_id and hearing_ids interact when both are supplied, and whether bulk is all-or-nothing.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Exclui uma AUDIÊNCIA do Astrea") and immediately frames the semantic consequence: deletion is permanent and recreating produces a new hearing_id. An agent can tell this apart from astrea_audiencia_editar without opening either schema.

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?

It states the selection condition explicitly ("Use para cancelar de vez") and names the alternative for the neighboring case ("para redesignar ou corrigir use astrea_audiencia_editar"), including why the alternative is preferable. There is nothing left to infer.

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