novacrm_delete_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the one trait that matters most for a delete tool — that removal is permanent and irreversible — but says nothing about required permissions, whether related data (e.g., subtasks) is affected, 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 zero filler, front-loading the destructive verb. It is appropriately sized, though at this brevity the terseness borders on under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 covers the essential fact (permanent deletion) but omits consequences, error behavior, and confirmation requirements. It is minimally sufficient to avoid misuse but leaves real gaps for an irreversible operation.

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 100% and the single parameter 'id' is documented in the schema as 'ID da tarefa', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about identifier format or source (e.g., from novacrm_list_tasks), which is the baseline-3 outcome for full-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('Exclui') and resource ('uma tarefa') and adds the qualifier 'permanentemente', which meaningfully distinguishes it from novacrm_complete_task and novacrm_update_task. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or contrast with novacrm_delete_automation, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 use this tool versus novacrm_complete_task, novacrm_update_task, or any other close alternative, and no stated prerequisites. The only hint is the word 'permanentemente', which implies 'use with caution' but leaves the agent to infer the decision boundary entirely.

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