guard_cancel_purpose_draft

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: exactly what is destroyed ('a finalidade... some' if born from the proposal and never published), what is left intact, and the auth prerequisite (guard_login with edit permission). This is precisely the extra behavioral detail the structured fields cannot carry.

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 action verb and the affected object; subsequent sentences are dense with scoping and auth constraints rather than filler. Slightly long, but each clause carries distinct information.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the destructive effect, the scope limits, and the authentication requirement. Nothing an agent needs in order 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% and there is a single parameter whose description ('Id da finalidade cujo rascunho será descartado') mirrors the schema text. The prose adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the 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+resource ('desiste da proposta (rascunho)... numa finalidade'), so an agent knows this cancels a draft proposal on a purpose. It contrasts with the published version and other agents' drafts, giving scope beyond the name, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative like guard_update_purpose.

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?

Provides explicit when-it-applies conditions (only the caller's own proposal, same agent and same logged-in person, unpublished) and when-not (draft open on screen, another person's/agent's draft, published version are untouched). Clear context and exclusions, though no sibling tool is named as an alternative.

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