Preparar Exclusão de Transação

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's statement 'sem excluir' aligns without adding significant new behavioral context. It confirms safety but offers minimal extra value.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is too terse; it could add substance without losing brevity. It meets the minimum but does not earn its place fully.

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 presence of sibling tools and a output schema (not shown), the description should hint at what the tool returns or how it differs from other prepare tools. It lacks completeness for a preview operation.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (id and scope with its enum values). The meaning of scope options (THIS, THIS_AND_NEXT, ALL) is left undefined, which is a gap for correct invocation.

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 'Mostra alvo e escopo sem excluir' clearly indicates the tool displays a target and scope without deleting, distinguishing it from the actual delete tool. The name 'prepare_delete_transaction' reinforces this, making purpose clear and 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like despezzas_delete_transaction. The description does not advise users to preview before deleting, leaving it implied by the name.

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