olist_contrato_adicional_excluir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'Esta operação altera dados' (this operation changes data) and 'exige confirmar=true', informing the agent that this is a mutating operation requiring explicit confirmation. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action 'Excluir Adicional de Contrato'. It includes an endpoint and documentation URL, which add some redundancy but are not excessive. The final sentence about mutation and confirmar=true is valuable. Overall, it is concise with minimal 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 simple delete operation with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, that it mutates data, and the confirmation requirement. It also provides a documentation link for deeper details. Lack of error/response information is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (id and confirmar), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description's 'exige confirmar=true' simply restates the schema's const: true constraint, adding no new semantic information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation: 'Excluir Adicional de Contrato' (delete contract add-on), naming both the action and resource. It also provides the exact API endpoint and documentation link. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool olist_contrato_adicional_incluir.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Excluir' and the resource name, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does mention the operation mutates data and requires confirmar=true, which is useful conditional guidance, but lacks comparisons to other contract tools.

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