sei_desativar_marcador

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: the tool modifies state (deactivates) but is non-destructive, and explains the effect on search and history. This goes beyond what annotations provide, giving useful behavioral detail.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second explains effect and alternative. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter format, effect, and relationship to sibling tools. It is self-contained and aligns with annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the parameter 'ids_marcadores' expects comma-separated IDs and what the tool does with them. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Ids Marcadores' title.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Desativa marcador(es) sem excluir' (deactivates markers without deleting). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'sei_excluir_marcador' which deletes, and explicitly mentions 'sei_reativar_marcador' for reactivation. The verb+resource is specific.

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?

The description explains when to use: to deactivate markers without deletion, and that deactivated markers hide from search but retain history. It explicitly names the sibling tool for reactivation, providing an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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