novacrm_delete_automation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important trait — the deletion is permanent — which is genuine added value. However, it says nothing about permissions required, whether dependent tasks/history are affected, or how to recover from a mistaken deletion.

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?

A single short sentence with the critical qualifier ('permanentemente') placed immediately, so it is front-loaded and waste-free. It is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and irreversibility but omits side effects and safety context an agent would want before deleting an automation. Adequate, not complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a single well-described 'id' parameter, so the schema already does the work. The description contributes no additional meaning about the identifier or its format, which is acceptable at full coverage but adds nothing.

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 ('Exclui') and resource ('regra de automação'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool acts on. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from novacrm_update_automation or novacrm_get_automation, but the delete verb makes the distinction obvious enough.

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 on when to use this versus novacrm_update_automation or novacrm_list_automations, and no prerequisite or confirmation guidance. The word 'permanentemente' hints that this is irreversible, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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