delete_trigger

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds valuable context beyond that by explicitly stating the action cannot be undone, reinforcing the irreversibility for the agent. It does not address side effects or permissions, but for a single-parameter destructive action this is adequate.

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 with no filler. The key warning about permanence is front-loaded and immediately reinforces the destructive nature of the operation.

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 simple delete operation with one documented parameter and destructive annotations, the description is largely complete. It could mention the response/return behavior or cascading effects, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool safely.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (trigger_id with a clear UUID description), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description itself does not explain the parameter, but the schema already fully carries that responsibility.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove um trigger') and emphasizes permanence ('permanentemente', 'não pode ser desfeita'), making it distinct from update/toggle operations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource and permanent-deletion semantics are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as toggle_trigger for temporary deactivation. The irreversible nature is noted, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing.

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