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

The description explicitly says 'Excluir' and '[write, altera dados]', indicating a mutating/destructive operation, while annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction about whether the tool destroys data, making the behavioral signal unreliable.

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, front-loaded with the operation, and includes the HTTP method and endpoint without filler. However, the trailing '[write, altera dados]' tag is somewhat redundant and contradicts the annotations, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 delete operation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It provides the endpoint and effect but omits all request-shaping details, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call without external documentation.

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% and the description gives no information about body, query, or account parameters. An agent cannot infer what the request payload should contain, what the query string expects, or how the account parameter is used. The description does not compensate for the missing schema details.

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 a specific operation: 'Excluir processo' (delete process), with the HTTP endpoint 'PUT /processos/delete'. This unambiguously identifies the tool's resource and action, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like superlogica_processos_create, superlogica_processos_list, and superlogica_processos_alterarstatus.

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 verb 'Excluir' implies the tool is used when a judicial process needs to be deleted, and siblings offer natural contrasts to create/list/alter status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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