apagar_treino

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context: only FUTURE trainings and only ones this MCP created, so the blast radius is deliberately limited. The user-confirmation requirement is not derivable from annotations either. It does not state whether the deletion is reversible or what happens to already-synced calendar entries.

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, zero filler, with the scope constraint and the confirmation gate both front-loaded before any invocation attempt.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs scope plus preconditions — which it delivers. The remaining gap is parameter identification for a destructive call, where guessing evento_id wrong is costly.

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% and neither of the two required parameters (atleta, evento_id) is described in the schema. The description adds no meaning — it never says what atleta identifies or that evento_id must refer to an event returned by listar_treinos/criar_treino, which is exactly the ambiguity that would cause a wrong deletion.

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 ("Apaga") and resource ("treino"), and narrows scope with "futuro" and "criado por este MCP", which separates it from atualizar_treino and criar_treino. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead when the target is a past or externally-created event.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition — only call after the user confirms — which is the key gating rule for a destructive operation. It does not say what to do when the target isn't a future MCP-created training, so the alternative path is left implicit.

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