Excluir Conta

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true. The description adds 'Operação de escrita destrutiva' and the confirm requirement, which is consistent. However, it does not elaborate on the permanence of deletion, impact on related data (e.g., transactions), or recovery options. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the additional value is moderate.

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: operation type, action, and requirement. Information is front-loaded and no extraneous content. Extremely concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, destructiveHint annotation, and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It identifies the required parameter (id) and the confirm requirement. However, it does not mention that deletion is permanent or impacts associated transactions. Nonetheless, with output schema available for return values, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects adequately.

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 50% (id has description, confirm has none). The description adds meaning for confirm by stating 'Exige confirm: true', which compensates for the missing schema description. The id parameter is already described in the schema as 'ID da conta em despezzas_list_accounts', so no additional value. Overall, the description adds some but limited semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Exclui uma conta do Despezzas' (deletes an account). It is a destructive write operation, distinct from sibling tools like despezzas_update_account or despezzas_delete_transaction. The verb 'excluir' plus resource 'conta' makes purpose unambiguous.

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 only mentions that 'confirm: true' is required. It does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., despezzas_update_account to deactivate, or other deletion tools). No explicit context for when-not-to-use or prerequisites beyond the confirm flag.

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