Update an order status by ID to mark it as paid, processing, completed, or cancelled.
Atualiza o status de um pedido (ex.: marcar como pago, em processamento ou concluído).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID do pedido | |
| status | Yes | Novo status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it implies a mutation but says nothing about permissions, whether status transitions are validated, side effects (stock, notifications, emails), or reversibility. The single example 'marcar como pago' also references a 'paid' state that does not exist in the enum, which could mislead an agent.
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?
One short sentence with zero filler, and the verb+resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the space saved is not spent on the transition/permission details that would actually help an agent.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what an agent needs beyond the schema: allowed transitions, error conditions, side effects, and what is returned. The enumerated statuses are supplied by the schema, so the description adds little to it.
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 the enum fully enumerates the five valid statuses, so the schema does the heavy lifting; the description only restates the intent. The illustrative 'pago' example is not in the enum, weakening rather than enriching the parameter explanation.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Atualiza o status de um pedido') and gives concrete examples of target statuses, so the operation is immediately understandable. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling novacrm_cancel_order, which appears to set one of the same enum values ('cancelled').
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 alternatives — notably novacrm_cancel_order, which overlaps directly with the 'cancelled' status. No preconditions (order must exist, allowed transitions, permission level) are stated, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.