Excluir nota

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the danger profile is machine-readable; the description reinforces this with 'PERMANENTEMENTE', which usefully stresses irreversibility. Beyond that it adds no context on permissions, cascade effects, or what happens if the note title matches multiple notes, and the required confirmar=true gate is explained only by the schema.

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, zero filler, with the destructive permanence warning front-loaded and the usage restriction immediately after. Nothing is redundant enough to cut.

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 single-target tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: irreversibility and user-consent gating. Only the resolution behavior for ambiguous note titles is left unaddressed.

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% and the schema itself explains that 'nota' accepts a title fragment or id and 'notebook' accepts id/URL/partial title. The description contributes nothing about these parameters, so it neither compensates for the undocumented 'confirmar' field nor clarifies ambiguity when partial titles match.

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?

Specific verb ('Exclui') plus resource ('uma nota do notebook') and a permanence qualifier, which lets an agent separate it from notebook_nota_criar and notebook_notas. It never explicitly names the sibling it is contrasted with (e.g. notebook_excluir for whole notebooks), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 a concrete gating condition for invocation, which is meaningful for a destructive action. It stops short of naming alternatives or telling the agent what to do instead when the user has not explicitly asked (e.g. list notes first, or ask for confirmation).

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