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

The description explicitly states 'Deletar' and 'write, altera dados', clearly indicating a destructive write operation. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint: false, which contradicts the description's assertion of deletion. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines transparency. The description does not add value beyond the contradictions, and no additional behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, cascade effects) is provided.

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, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose (deletion endpoint) and adds a single relevant bulk support detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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?

Despite being a delete tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the body or account parameters, nor any consequences of deletion (e.g., cascade effects, irreversibility). The only additional context is the bulk capability. Given the annotation contradiction and lack of parameter explanations, the description is incomplete for reliable tool usage.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for any of the four parameters (id, ids, body, account). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only mentions 'accepts ids for batched execution', which partially explains the ids parameter. It says nothing about the required id field, body, or account parameters, leaving their purpose ambiguous. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all parameters.

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 'Serviços: Deletar (DELETE /api/servicos/{id})' which precisely identifies the action (delete), the resource (services), and the HTTP method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gestaoclick_servicos_create and gestaoclick_servicos_update. The bulk support note further clarifies the scope for batched operations.

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 implicitly indicates usage for deleting services, but it does not explicitly provide 'when to use' versus alternatives. The bulk support note (accepts ids for batched execution) gives a specific use case, but there is no mention of when not to use or comparisons to update/create tools. This is clear context but lacks explicit guidance.

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