DELETE /extraField/:id (Extra Field)

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds critical context: deletion is permanent and cascades to linked values. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences—concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds key warnings. No extraneous text.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the action and consequence. Missing elements like required permissions are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'Valor de :id na rota /extraField/:id'. The description does not add new meaning to this parameter, so it meets the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool deletes an extra field ('Exclusão de um Campo Extra'). The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling delete tools like delete_contract and delete_customer.

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?

It implies usage for deletion but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like updating the field to inactive. The warning about permanence is helpful context but not direct usage guidance.

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