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

The description explicitly states 'Deletar' (delete) and marks it as '[write, altera dados]', which indicates a destructive mutation. However, the annotation destructiveHint is false, implying the tool is not destructive. This directly contradicts the description. The annotation also has readOnlyHint=false which aligns with the 'write' claim, but the destructiveHint conflict is severe enough to warrant a score of 1.

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 compact, consisting of two concise sentences. It front-loads the core purpose (Deletar) and the endpoint, then adds bulk support detail. It avoids redundancy and unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating endpoint and behavior).

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?

While a delete operation is relatively simple, the tool has 4 parameters (1 required) with 0% schema descriptions. The description only covers 'ids' partially, leaving 'id', 'body', and 'account' unexplained. There is no output schema to clarify return values. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of structured documentation, the description 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter explanations. It does add semantics for the 'ids' parameter by stating 'accepts ids for batched execution', but provides no explanation for the required 'id', nor for 'body' or 'account'. This is insufficient given the tool's complexity and the lack of schema descriptions.

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 this tool deletes extra sales attributes (Campos extras vendas: Deletar) and provides the specific endpoint DELETE /api/atributos_vendas/{id}. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming the resource type (vendas) and the action (delete), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives the core action (delete) and notes bulk execution capability via ids, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus other delete tools for different resource types (e.g., delete for clientes, compras). It implies usage from the name and resource context, but explicit when-to-use guidance is absent.

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