novacrm_delete_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that the deletion is permanent. It says nothing about required permissions, whether related records (opportunities, orders) are affected, error behavior for invalid IDs, or what the call returns.

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?

One short sentence with zero filler; the irreversible nature is folded in rather than buried. The terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than verbosity.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should indicate what a successful deletion returns and any side effects or safeguards. Neither is present, so an agent cannot predict the outcome of a call.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'ID da proposta'. The description adds no format, source, or validation semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource pair ('Exclui ... uma proposta') and adds the qualifier 'permanentemente', so the agent knows exactly which entity is being removed. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling mutations like update_proposal or delete_task, but the naming and scope are 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?

There is no guidance on when to delete a proposal versus updating it, or any prerequisite such as ownership/state checks before deletion. The only cue is the tool name itself, leaving the agent to infer usage conditions.

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