Excluir notebook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the detail annotations cannot: exactly what is destroyed (sources, chat, notes, Studio items) and that the effect is permanent and irreversible. It also states the confirmation gate the agent must enforce before calling.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first carries the destructive scope, the second carries the guard condition. The irreversible nature is front-loaded via 'PERMANENTEMENTE'.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the agent needs the blast radius and the safety condition, and both are present. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents that 'notebook' accepts an id/URL/partial title and that 'confirmar' must be true. The description reinforces the intent behind 'confirmar' but adds no syntax or identifier-resolution detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (excluir) and resource (notebook) and immediately scopes what the deletion covers: 'com fontes, chat, notas e itens do Estúdio'. That cascade detail is what separates it from siblings like notebook_nota_excluir, notebook_fonte_remover and notebook_estudio_excluir.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: only when the user explicitly asks and confirms which notebook. It does not name alternative tools for partial deletion, but the cascade scope implicitly tells the agent that the sub-deletion tools are unnecessary for a full wipe.

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