excluir_tabela_opcoes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not indicate irreversibility, required permissions, side effects, or success/error responses, which is critical for a deletion tool.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but severely underspecified for a deletion tool. It lacks essential details, making conciseness a drawback rather than a strength.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, no output schema, and a bare minimum description, the information provided is grossly incomplete. The agent has insufficient context to safely invoke this tool.

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 0% description coverage and the tool description adds no information about the sole parameter 'id_tabela'. The agent is left without guidance on format, source, or example values for the ID.

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 verb 'Excluir' (delete) and the resource 'tabela de opcoes' (options table) from Ploomes CRM, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'salvar_tabela_opcoes' which creates or updates the same resource.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or mention when not to use it, such as when the table is in use or has dependencies.

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