sincronizar_shopify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what data is included (transactions, refunds, financial status) and the dual behavior modes, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose idempotency, whether it overwrites local data, whether it creates duplicates, or auth requirements. For a sync/write operation with no annotation coverage, more behavioral context would be valuable.

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 sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second states modes and coverage. No wasted words, though the structure could benefit from explicit paragraph separation.

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 sync tool with 2 params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and date logic. However, it's a state-changing sync operation with no annotations, and it doesn't address concurrency, return value, or failure semantics. Given no output schema exists, describing what the function returns would improve completeness.

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%, so both parameters (inicio, fim) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the behavioral context that omitting inicio uses the last 7 days of updates, which is genuinely additive. This slightly exceeds the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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+resource ('Sincroniza pedidos Shopify para o banco local') and clearly states scope (by period or recently modified). It mentions including transactions, refunds, and financial status, which adds specificity. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar synchronization siblings like sincronizar_payables or sincronizar_tudo, but the focus on Shopify orders is reasonably clear.

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 implies when to use it ('sincronizar pedidos Shopify') and offers two modes (by period or recently modified). However, it does not explicitly address when NOT to use it or contrast with alternatives like sincronizar_payables (which likely syncs similar payables data). The guidance is clear in context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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