sei_excluir_bloco_assinatura

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a delete operation. The description adds that IDs are comma-separated and suggests checking version on failure. However, it does not elaborate on consequences (e.g., cascading effects or irreversibility) beyond what annotations indicate.

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 extremely concise with three short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and input format. The second provides version context. The third gives a troubleshooting hint. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, high annotation coverage, output schema exists), the description is mostly sufficient. It covers purpose, parameter format, and version constraints. It does not describe the output, but the presence of an output schema reduces that need. A slight improvement would be to mention that deletion is permanent.

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 add meaning. It specifies 'IDs separados por vírgula', which clarifies the format for the single parameter 'ids_blocos'. It does not explain what these IDs represent, but most agents can infer from the tool name. This provides minimal but adequate value.

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 clearly states 'Exclui bloco(s) de assinatura' (deletes signature blocks), which is a specific verb+resource. The comma-separated IDs detail clarifies the input format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sei_retirar_documentos_bloco_assinatura' or 'sei_concluir_bloco_assinatura'.

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 mentions the version requirement (mod-wssei 2.0.0) and a troubleshooting fallback, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use 'sei_excluir_bloco_interno' vs this). The usage is implied but not explicit.

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