alterar_fornecedor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates an existing supplier, but it does not explain which parameter(s) identify the target supplier (e.g., codigo_cliente_omie or codigo_cliente_integracao), whether the update is partial or full, or what happens if the supplier does not exist. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without wasted words. While minimal, it is appropriately concise for the basic action it defines.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 optional params, no required fields, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the required identifier, update semantics, or success/failure behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool reliably.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level information. With 12 nullable parameters, including two possible identifier fields (codigo_cliente_omie, codigo_cliente_integracao), the description does not clarify which fields are necessary or how they relate. This leaves critical ambiguity about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 ('Altera dados') and the resource ('fornecedor existente no OMIE'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'incluir_fornecedor' (create) and 'consultar_fornecedor' (read) by specifying alteration of an existing supplier.

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 verb 'Altera' and phrase 'fornecedor existente' imply it is for updating already-created suppliers, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like 'incluir_fornecedor' or 'consultar_fornecedor.' The context is enough to infer basic usage, but not to disambiguate specific situations.

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