ad_delete_ou

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the safety burden and the [DESTRUCTIVE] tag plus 'validacao de protecao e conteudo' tell the agent the operation is irreversible and gated by protection/content checks. However, it omits the confirmation_token requirement, the dry_run safety path, and whether recursive deletes cascade to child objects — all critical for a destructive 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 line with bracketed category and severity tags, then the action — no padding. It is efficient, though the terse Portuguese phrasing and unexplained 'validacao' clause pack ambiguity into the little space used.

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 multi-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin; an output schema exists but nothing covers the confirmation/dry-run protocol or failure modes. An agent could not reliably invoke this safely from the description alone.

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 five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: dry_run, recursive, confirmation_token, and correlation_id are never mentioned or explained. Only 'conteudo' loosely gestures at recursive behavior, leaving the agent to guess at the confirmation-token workflow.

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?

'Excluir OU' names a specific verb and resource, and the [Organizational Units] tag plus the ad_delete_ou name make it trivially distinguishable from siblings like ad_delete_user or ad_delete_gpo. It stops short of 5 only because it does not clarify scope (e.g., what 'validacao de conteudo' concretely rejects).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus ad_move_object or ad_set_ou_protection, and no prerequisites or ordering guidance. The mention of protection validation hints that protected OUs are blocked, but nothing tells the agent how to check protection first or when recursive deletion is appropriate.

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