azure_delete_iteration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only warns 'use com cautela,' hinting at destructiveness but failing to specify consequences, reversibility, or impact on dependent items. The description adds minimal transparency beyond an implicit danger signal.

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, compact sentence with a parenthetical warning. It is front-loaded with the main action and alerts the user quickly. However, the use of Portuguese in an otherwise English tool name and schema is slightly disorganized, though not wasteful.

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 destructive delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks context about side effects, required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to associated work items. The warning is too generic to guide safe usage.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (team and iterationId) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information, but it does not need to because the schema already explains the fields.

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 'Deleta uma iteration' (deletes an iteration), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like azure_delete_work_item by explicitly targeting iterations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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. The warning 'use com cautela' (use with caution) is a generic caution, not a contextual directive. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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