Excluir motivo de perda (DELETE /api/v1/business-loss-reasons/{id}). [write, altera dados]
Bulk support: accepts ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| ids | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| account | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly says '[write, altera dados]' which aligns. However, it doesn't disclose consequences like irreversible deletion, cascading effects, or auth requirements beyond the brief '[write]' tag. There is no contradiction, but little added behavioral context beyond what annotations imply.
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?
Description is brief and front-loaded with the action, no fluff. However, it dedicates a line to bulk support which is useful, but could note more about parameters. Still, it's concise and not padded.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and low annotation richness, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details, usage scenarios, and any mention of return values or error handling. For a delete operation, it's minimal but misses critical operational context.
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 description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'ids' for bulk support but doesn't define 'id', 'ids' relationship, 'body', or 'account'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving most parameters ambiguous.
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 tool deletes business loss reasons via DELETE endpoint, with the resource and HTTP method. It distinguishes from siblings (create, get, list, update) by explicitly being the delete operation. The '[write, altera dados]' notation clarifies it mutates data.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., need an existing loss reason) or contrast with update/disable. Only bulk support is mentioned, which is a feature, not usage context.
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.