Excluir regra

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes further by specifying the deletion is permanent, scoping exactly what is destroyed (the rule) and what is preserved (already-moved emails), and disclosing the tool's own confirmation prompt. No contradiction with annotations; this is valuable context beyond the structured hints.

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, no filler. The destructive warning is front-loaded in caps, followed by scope clarification and pre-call instructions. Every sentence contributes necessary 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 delete operation, the description is complete: it states what is permanently removed, what is unaffected, the required pre-call user disclosure, and the confirmation flow. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. An agent has what it needs to execute safely.

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%: the single `id` parameter is self-documented as 'ID da regra.' The description mentions rule attributes (nome/condição/ação) for the pre-call display but adds no new meaning about the id format, source, or how it relates to the sibling listar_regras tool. Baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('exclui') and resource ('regra da Caixa de Entrada') and immediately clarifies scope: the rule itself, not the emails it moved. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling rule tools like outlook_criar_regra, outlook_alterar_regra, and outlook_desativar_regra.

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?

The description gives actionable context on when to call it: before invoking, the agent must show rule name/condition/action and explain the effect, and it signals that human confirmation is requested. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the destructive framing makes it clear this is for permanent removal rather than modification or toggling.

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