Excluir item do Estúdio

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds two pieces of real value: the deletion is PERMANENT, and already-downloaded files on the PC are not affected. It does not describe what happens to the notebook or generated artifacts beyond the item itself, nor error/auth behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, the destructive scope is front-loaded with the permanence warning, and the type enumeration earns its space by defining exactly which artifacts qualify. No filler.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema deletion tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness, the description covers the essential unknowns: what gets deleted, that it is irreversible, and that local downloads survive. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 67%: 'item' and 'notebook' are documented in the schema (title-or-id, partial title, URL), but the required 'confirmar' boolean has no schema description. The description never mentions parameters, though 'PERMANENTEMENTE' plus 'Só use quando o usuário pedir' implicitly signals the confirmation gate for 'confirmar'.

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?

States a specific verb ('Exclui') and resource (item do Estúdio), and enumerates the item types it covers (Resumo em Áudio, Mapa mental, Tabela de dados, etc.), which makes the scope unambiguous. It does not name the adjacent Studio siblings (notebook_estudio_renomear, notebook_estudio_baixar) to contrast with, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Só use quando o usuário pedir' gives an explicit gating condition for a destructive action, which is real usage guidance rather than an implied one. It does not name alternatives (e.g. rename instead of delete, or that downloading is non-destructive), so no when-not/alternative routing is provided.

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