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

The description explicitly flags '[write, altera dados]', which tells the agent the operation modifies data. However, annotations already state readOnlyHint: false小心谨慎; while the description adds the Portuguese 'altera dados', it doesn't disclose potential consequences (e.g., permanent removal, cascade effects). Crucially, the annotation destructiveHint: false contradicts the actual destructive nature of a DELETE endpoint, so the description fails to clarify this. This is an annotation contradiction.

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?

Very short and to the point. The essential action is stated upfront, and bulk support is mentioned right after. No wasted words.

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 destructive operation with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description leaves major gaps: no mentions of security/auth considerations, error handling, or what happens after deletion (e.g., related records). The bulk support note helps, but overall it under-specifies the behavior of this mutation tool.

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 shows 4 parameters with 0% description coverageemen. The description only mentions 'id' implicitly via the endpoint and 'ids' for batch; 'body' and 'account' remain unexplained. This adds little value beyond what the schema already shows, leaving the agent guessing about the purpose of 'body' and 'account'.

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 action ('Deletar'), the target resource ('orcamentos'), and the HTTP endpoint (DELETE /api/orcamentos/{id}). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the specific resource. The purpose is unambiguous, though it doesn't add detail beyond what the name and schema imply.

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?

Mentions bulk support via 'ids' parameter, which is a useful usage hint. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this over other orcamentos operations (e.g., update vs. delete) or any prerequisites/caveats. Minimal guidance beyond the basic operation.

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