fluig_globalevent_delete

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it flags the operation as write/destructive/irreversible, documents the dry-run default, and describes exactly what each mode returns (the event that would be deleted vs. the deleted code eventoApagado). This is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive 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?

The destructive warning is front-loaded in capitals, followed by scope, then mode behavior, then recovery. Every clause carries information (target, blast radius, dry-run, return payload, restore path) with no 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains both return shapes (dry-run preview with code, and eventoApagado after deletion). Combined with the destructive warning and the restore pointer, nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents env, confirm, and eventId in detail; baseline is 3. The description reinforces confirm's dry-run semantics and eventId's single-target scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete ONE global event by eventId), scopes the blast radius ('os demais eventos não são afetados'), and names the sibling used for restoration (fluig_globalevent_save). An agent can distinguish it from fluig_globalevent_list/save without opening any 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?

Explicitly describes the two invocation modes: without confirm=true it is a dry-run, with confirm=true it actually deletes, and it points to fluig_globalevent_save as the recovery path. It lacks an explicit 'prefer X instead' routing versus fluig_globalevent_list, but the when-to-use guidance for the destructive flag is clear.

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