delete_csp

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the 'permanentemente' qualifier, signaling irreversibility, but does not mention cascading effects, required permissions, or failure behavior if the CSP is in use.

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?

The description is one short, direct sentence with no filler or repeated schema information. The key message—permanent removal of a security policy—is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter delete operation with destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description sufficiently states the action and permanence for invocation. It omits post-deletion effects and return value, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple.

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 100%; the single required csp_id parameter has a UUID format and a description ('UUID da CSP a remover'). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema fully documents the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('uma política de segurança') and adds 'permanentemente', making it clear this is a permanent deletion tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_csp, update_csp, toggle_csp, and list_csps even without naming 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not contrast permanent deletion with toggle_csp for temporary disabling or update_csp for modification, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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