grafana_excluir_dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver the two most important traits: the operation is destructive and gated by a two-step approval. It stops short of stating irreversibility, what dependent objects (alert rules, permissions, snapshots of panels) are affected, or how the approval token is obtained. Real value is added, but the behavioral picture is incomplete for a delete.

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?

One compact sentence with the destructive warning front-loaded, no filler. The stray "7." prefix and the placement of the risk note in parentheses rather than up front cost it a point, but nothing is wasted.

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 an irreversible delete with a two-step approval mechanism and an opaque token parameter, the description is too thin: it does not explain the approval flow, the consequences of deletion, or failure modes. An output schema exists so return values need no coverage, but the workflow an agent must execute to call this safely is missing.

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 and only partially does: "pelo UID" gives meaning to the uid parameter, but token_aprovacao is left entirely unexplained — the "aprovação em dois passos" phrase hints at it without saying what the token is, where it comes from, or whether it is required on the first call or a retry.

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+resource pair ("Excluir um dashboard") scoped by identifier ("pelo UID"), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like grafana_excluir_pasta or grafana_remover_painel, and the leading "7." is a leftover list artifact, but the action itself is 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 parenthetical "Ação destrutiva - requer aprovação em dois passos" implies usage conditions: only call deliberately, and expect a two-step approval workflow. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., moving a dashboard to a folder via grafana_mover_dashboard instead of deleting) or what preconditions outside the token must hold.

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