sei_remover_acompanhamento

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool first queries active monitoring before removal, which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if monitoring does not exist) or return format.

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 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value by clarifying the two-step process.

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 parameter, no output schema needed for understanding the action), the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits handling of edge cases (e.g., no active monitoring to remove) and does not reference the output schema, which could help agents understand the return value.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'processo' with no description. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter's format, meaning, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter title alone.

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 the action ('Remove acompanhamento especial de um processo') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sei_acompanhar_processo (add) and sei_listar_acompanhamentos (list), but does not explicitly contrast with them, leaving some ambiguity for new users.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it does; it does not mention prerequisites, nor when to choose remove over list or add. Users must infer usage from context.

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