excluir_secao_formulario_pipeline

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: deleting a section also removes all fields within it. Since no annotations are provided, this warning is essential. However, it does not cover other aspects like idempotency, error states (e.g., section not found), or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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: one sentence for the purpose, one warning sentence, and a prerequisite list item. Every element is essential and front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: what it does, the side effect, and how to obtain the input. It lacks details about the return value or error handling, but for a delete operation, the information is sufficient for safe use.

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 only parameter is 'id' (integer, required), and the schema coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning by explaining that this ID identifies the section to delete and directs the agent to usar buscar_formulario_pipeline to obtain it. This compensates for the missing schema documentation and provides practical guidance.

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 action (excluir) and the resource (seção do formulário de negócios de um pipeline), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like excluir_secao_formulario_proposta or excluir_secao_campo. The verb and resource are specific, leaving no ambiguity.

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 includes a prerequisite step (use buscar_formulario_pipeline to get the section ID) and warns about the cascading deletion of fields. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and what preparation is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for deleting individual fields.

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