glpi_excluir_computador

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the deletion is a soft-delete (non-permanent) and reversible, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like authorization needs or side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and key behavior (soft-delete, reversible). Every word earns its place with no waste.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it specifies the action and reversible nature. It could mention potential errors or return values, but given the simplicity, it adequately covers the context.

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 compensate. It does not explain the meaning of the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (type integer, required). The context of the tool name implies it's a computer ID, but the description adds no explicit semantic value.

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: moving a computer to the trash (soft-delete) and notes it is reversible via glpi_reverter. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like glpi_excluir_chamado or glpi_criar_computador.

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?

The description implies usage for soft-deleting a computer and mentions reversibility, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions.

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