rm

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds information they cannot carry: deletion is irreversible because OpenProject has no trash, and child work packages are cascade-deleted. The mandatory confirmation step is also disclosed, which materially changes how the agent should sequence the call.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: destructive scope first, confirmation requirement second, routing alternative last. No restatement of the tool name or filler.

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, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials: permanence, cascade behavior, confirmation gating, and the safer alternative. The only gap is that the preview step which generates the 'cf' code is implied but not tied to a named tool.

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%, so both 'cf' and 'alvos' are already documented in detail in the schema, including target formats and the preview-code flow. The description adds only an indirect hint ('Sempre pede confirmação') that the 'cf' token exists, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Apaga work packages PERMANENTEMENTE') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('filhos também são apagados', no trash). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'up' for the closing use case, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It gives both a when-not ('Para encerrar, prefira up com status fechado') and an explicit workflow expectation ('Sempre pede confirmação'), which tells the agent this is a two-step operation. The alternative path is named rather than left to inference.

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