novacrm_delete_opportunity

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the single most important trait — that deletion is permanent/irreversible — but says nothing about required permissions, whether related records (tasks, proposals) are cascaded, or what happens when the id does not exist.

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 destructive qualifier placed where it will be read first; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, but there is no filler 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and its irreversibility but leaves gaps around confirmation expectations, cascade effects and failure behavior. It is minimally adequate rather than 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ("ID da oportunidade"). The description adds no format hints, no indication of whether a human-readable or internal ID is expected, and no error semantics for an invalid 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 names a specific verb ("Exclui permanentemente") and resource ("uma oportunidade do pipeline"), so an agent can distinguish it from novacrm_delete_task, novacrm_delete_proposal and the non-destructive opportunity tools. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling delete tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of novacrm_update_opportunity or novacrm_move_opportunity, no prerequisites, and no warning about when not to call it. The only usage signal is the adverb "permanentemente", which implies caution but is not framed as guidance.

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