Remover fontes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add context, which it does by emphasizing permanence and requiring user confirmation. It adds a bit of value on top of the safety profile the annotations already carry, but does not go further into irreversibility or downstream effects.

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 short sentences with zero waste, and the critical constraint (permanence) is front-loaded ahead of the usage rule.

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's safety profile is already covered by annotations, and the confirmation sweep is enforced by the schema's confirmar const:true. The description supplies the permanence warning and usage gate, leaving only minor gaps (such as what happens to derived artifacts) for this destructive 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 100%, so all three parameters (fontes, notebook, confirmar) are already documented in the schema with const/true constraints. The description only implies that confirming which sources matters and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource (remove sources from a notebook) plus a strong consequence adverb (PERMANENTEMENTE), which makes the effect unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling notebook_excluir or notebook_fonte_renomear, so it stops short of 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 e confirmar quais" gives a clear precondition for invocation (explicit user request plus confirmation of which sources). It does not name an alternative tool or describe when not to use it versus siblings, so it is not a 5.

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