ad_delete_gpo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the two most important traits — the operation is destructive and requires confirmation. However, it omits what exactly is destroyed (GPO links, settings, history), whether it is reversible, and what permissions are needed.

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 line with bracketed tags and zero filler; the destructive signal comes first. It is terse to the point of under-specification, 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 a destructive mutation with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the definition is too thin: an agent cannot tell how dry_run or confirmation_token should be supplied, nor what the blast radius is. The output schema covers return values, but input-side guidance 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% across four parameters. The description only alludes to confirmation ('confirmacao'), leaving identity, dry_run, and correlation_id undocumented in both schema and description, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Excluir/delete) and resource (GPO), plus a [DESTRUCTIVE] tag and the confirmation requirement. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ad_get_gpo or ad_create_gpo by name and action, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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 implies use when a GPO must be removed, and 'com confirmacao' hints at a safety step, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and does not point to alternatives such as ad_unlink_gpo first.

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