dxf_delete_entities

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write/destructive operation. The description adds real value beyond them: the hard 'confirm=true' requirement, that 'dry_run mostra a prévia sem gravar', and the ability to preserve the original via output_path. It doesn't state what happens if confirm is omitted (error vs no-op), so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and constraint, followed by when-to-use, a parameter list, and a concrete example. It is appropriately sized, though the bare parameter enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 tool with a confirm gate, the description covers the safety mechanics and offers a working example, and the output schema can carry return-value detail. It is nearly complete, missing only handles-format detail and the failure mode when confirm is absent.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it partially compensates by explaining confirm (mandatory), dry_run (preview only), and output_path (preserve original). But 'path' and especially 'handles' receive no explanation of format or meaning, and the 'Parâmetros:' line merely restates the names.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Apaga entidades de um DXF'), so an agent immediately knows this deletes entities. However, it never differentiates from the sibling 'delete_entities', which handles a very similar operation, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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?

'QUANDO USAR: remover entidades erradas' gives a clear usage context, and the note 'Prefira output_path para manter o original' prescribes a safer path. It stops short of naming exclusions or contrasting with the near-identical 'delete_entities' sibling.

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