Structure Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the operation destructive, explains the two-phase confirm gate (without confirm = preview with would_delete; with confirm = actual deletion), and instructs calling without confirm first to show a preview. This discloses the exact safety-critical behavior of 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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by clearly labeled sections (**Use quando**, **Retorna**, **Exemplo**, **Notas**). Every line earns its place for a destructive tool, with no 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 a destructive 4-param tool with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, invocation trigger, return behavior, an example, and safer alternatives. The only real gap is the undocumented 'connection_id' parameter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains 'confirm' semantics and demonstrates 'workspace' via the example, and implies 'domain' scope, but 'connection_id' is never mentioned. Partial coverage of a 4-param schema that is otherwise undocumented.

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 verb (Remove) plus the exact resource and scope ('um domain ou o workspace inteiro com todos os itens'), which clearly separates it from item_delete and relation_delete siblings. The word 'Destrutivo' is front-loaded so an agent can immediately gauge severity.

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?

Explicitly scopes invocation to 'O usuário pediu explicitamente para apagar' and names alternatives with their conditions: prefer backup_export beforehand and use status=deprecated via item_save when historical data matters. This is genuine when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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