Registers a new store order with customer name, items, optional delivery address, notes, and initial status, enabling AI assistants to create orders through NovaCRM.
Registra um novo pedido para a loja.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Itens do pedido | |
| notes | No | Observações do pedido | |
| status | No | Status inicial (padrão new) | |
| customerName | Yes | Nome do cliente do pedido | |
| deliveryAddress | No | Endereço de entrega |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether stock is decremented, whether status defaults to 'new', whether an unknown customer name creates a client record, or whether the operation is reversible. For a multi-field mutation with nested items, this is a substantial gap.
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 short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but here brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient information density. There is no waste, but also very little content.
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?
The tool has five parameters including a nested items array, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description never explains what is returned (e.g., an order ID) or how required fields like customerName and items are validated. Given the complexity, the definition is not complete enough to call confidently.
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 100% and every property (including nested item fields and the status enum) is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter meaning at all beyond what the schema already states.
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?
"Registra um novo pedido para a loja" identifies the verb (register/create) and resource (order), but it is essentially a translation of the tool name with no added scope, field detail, or distinction from siblings such as novacrm_update_order_status or novacrm_cancel_order. An agent can guess the purpose, but the description does not sharpen 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_order_status, cancel_order, or the list/get order tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the customer must already exist or whether the product catalog must be consulted. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.