excluir_proposta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Excluir' (delete) without mentioning whether the action is reversible, what constraints exist (e.g., cannot delete if proposal is associated with a sale), or any side effects. This lack of transparency is significant for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and the prerequisite. Every sentence adds value. There is no fluff or repetition.

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, the description covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite. However, it lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., permanence, dependencies) that would make the definition complete. The presence of related sibling tools is acknowledged, but the description does not address all information an agent might need.

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 input schema has one parameter 'id_proposta' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain the parameter's format, expected values, or constraints. Since there is only one parameter and no schema descriptions, the description fails to add any meaningful semantics beyond the parameter name.

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 it deletes a proposal/quote from the Ploomes CRM. The verb 'excluir' (delete) and the resource 'proposta' are explicit. However, it does not add any unique scope or nuance that fully distinguishes it from other delete tools beyond the resource name.

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 provides a prerequisite: first get the proposal ID using 'buscar_proposta'. This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is minimal but sufficient for a straightforward delete operation.

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