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

Annotations include destructiveHint: false, but the description says 'Apaga' (deletes), which implies destruction. This is a potential contradiction: the annotation suggests it's not destructive, but the description clearly indicates deletion. No additional behavioral context is provided, such as whether deletion is permanent or if it affects notes using the label.

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 a single, concise sentence in Portuguese. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is under-specified, which is not a conciseness issue but a completeness issue.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the account parameter, the effect of deletion, or any error conditions. The description is too brief for a deletion operation.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'pelo nome' (by name), which aligns with the 'name' parameter, but it doesn't explain the 'account' parameter at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Apaga uma label pelo nome' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (label) with the method (by name). It distinguishes from siblings like keep_create_label and keep_list_labels, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication or whether the label must exist. The description is minimal and doesn't provide context for selection.

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