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

The description says '[write, altera dados]' and 'Excluir', which clearly indicates a destructive mutation, but the annotations set destructiveHint to false. This is a direct contradiction. The description also does not explain what happens to associated data or whether deletion is reversible.

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 short, front-loaded with the action and resource, and adds the endpoint for clarity. It is concise and easy to scan, though the bracketed metadata is partially redundant with the verb.

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?

The tool has three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no usage or behavior context. For a destructive operation with conflicting annotations, the description fails to give an agent enough information to invoke it correctly or understand its consequences.

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?

There are three parameters (body, query, account) with zero schema coverage in the description. The description provides no explanation of what each parameter means, what format body should take, or what query and account refer to. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Excluir') and resource ('uma unidade'), and cites the endpoint (POST /unidades/delete). It makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishable from sibling unit tools like create, update, and list.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as superlogica_unidades_post_update or superlogica_unidades_delete-related siblings. There are no preconditions, exclusion criteria, or alternative names mentioned.

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