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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is irreversible and requires the 'allow_writes' flag. This goes beyond the structured data by clarifying permission prerequisites and non-reversibility.

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, using a single sentence to state the action, scope, irreversibility, and permission requirement. Every word adds value with no fluff.

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 simple delete operation, the description covers the essential context (irreversibility, permission). However, it omits details about response behavior, error conditions, or whether it's a hard delete, which would be useful but not critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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% and the description offers no parameter explanations. While parameter names like 'ids' and 'account' are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, even though the 'por id' phrase hints at 'ids' usage.

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 ('Exclui' - deletes) and the resource (CT-e), specifying they are drafts/rejected ones selected by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling operations like cancellation, making the 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 provides clear usage context by specifying the tool applies to drafts/rejected CT-e and warns it is irreversible, requiring the 'allow_writes' permission. While it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings like 'hivecloud_cte_cancelar', the scope is well-defined.

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