delete_role

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the destructive nature and mandates user confirmation, which is meaningful. But it omits whether deletion is irreversible, what permissions the bot needs, what happens to members holding the role, and what failures look like.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety instruction; nothing is padded or redundant. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than waste, but the structure itself is clean.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the definition is too thin. It never addresses permissions, irreversibility, side effects on role holders, or error behavior, which an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 all three parameters (guild_id, role_id, reason), yet the description says nothing about any of them. It does not clarify that reason is an optional audit-log note or why both a guild and a role id are required, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('APAGA um cargo' / delete a role), which cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_channel or delete_message. It lacks any scope detail (e.g., what happens to members holding the role), so it falls short of the top tier, but an agent can identify the operation from it.

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 instruction 'Confirme com o usuário antes' is real usage guidance: it tells the agent this is a destructive action needing user confirmation. However, it gives no guidance on alternatives such as edit_role (rename/modify) or remove_role (detach from a member) versus deleting the role entity outright, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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