Excluir acerto

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the call requires confirm: true. It does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether related records (transactions, balances) are affected, or what happens if confirm is omitted.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding, and the destructive action is stated first with the confirm precondition immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, yet the description leaves out the things an agent most needs: permanence/reversibility, side effects on related data, permission requirements, and failure behavior when confirm is missing. For a deletion tool the bar is higher than two sentences.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for two parameters. It does explain the semantics of confirm (must be true to proceed), which the bare boolean schema does not, but it says nothing about id beyond what the tool name implies, and never clarifies that id identifies the settlement to remove.

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 and resource ("Exclui um acerto registrado" – deletes a registered settlement), which maps cleanly onto the tool name delete_person_settlement. It is clear about what is acted upon, but it does nothing to distinguish this from the surrounding settlement tools (list_person_settlements, create_person_settlement) beyond the verb 'exclui'.

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 reach for this tool versus alternatives, and no stated preconditions such as needing an existing settlement id or being the settlement's owner. The only usage-like statement is the confirm requirement, which is a calling mechanic rather than when-to-use guidance.

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