Remover acesso a uma pasta liberada pelo chat

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

The annotations are all false and thus provide no meaningful behavioral profile, so the description steps up by disclosing that the tool always requests real human confirmation before removing access and that it does not affect non-chat-released folders. This is valuable beyond the structured metadata, though it could also mention what happens after confirmation or possible error cases.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: when to use, an example, a scope limitation, and a behavioral guarantee. The most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the exact resource scope, the limitation, and required confirmation behavior. An agent has sufficient context to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'pasta' with a clear description, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds an example path (D:\Projetos) that helps convey expected format, but it does not substantially extend the schema's meaning.

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 action ('remover acesso') on a specific resource ('pasta liberada pelo chat'), with an example and an explicit scope. It clearly differentiates from related tools like solicitar_acesso_pasta and listar_pastas_permitidas by naming the permission-removal action for chat-released folders.

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 a clear when-to-use trigger ('quando o usuário pedir para você parar de acessar'), an explicit example, and a strong exclusion: standard or extension-configured folders cannot be changed by this tool and must be handled in extension settings. This gives an agent actionable routing guidance.

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