grafana_excluir_pasta

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits: the operation is destructive and it optionally cascades to dependent dashboards, plus that approval is required. However, it does not explain the approval mechanism (how to obtain token_aprovacao), reversibility, or required permissions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that gets to the verb quickly. However, the '64.' numbering prefix is pure waste, and the parenthetical warning is compact but vague.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a destructive folder mutation with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description should clarify the approval flow and cascade implications; it hints at both without making them actionable.

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 coverage is 0% and neither of the two parameters (uid, token_aprovacao) is explained in the description. The word 'aprovação' loosely gestures at token_aprovacao but never tells the agent how to obtain or supply it, and uid is undocumented entirely. The description does not compensate for the zero coverage.

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 ('Excluir uma pasta') and adds scope ('opcionalmente seus dashboards dependentes'). It is clearly distinguishable from grafana_excluir_dashboard by the folder resource, though it never names the sibling explicitly. The '64.' prefix is noise that detracts slightly.

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' is a warning, not usage guidance. It does not say when to delete a folder versus moving/emptying it, nor how this relates to grafana_excluir_dashboard. No when-to-use or when-not conditions are provided.

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