olist_cadastrar_codigo_rastreamento_pedido

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Atualizar informações de despacho' indicates a write operation, but it does not describe what gets overwritten, whether fields are optional, what happens to existing data, or what the response contains. No auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects are mentioned. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides the endpoint and a documentation link. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the documentation URL could arguably be moved to a separate metadata field.

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 has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain expected outcomes, return values, or how this tool fits into the order-fulfillment workflow. It also lacks guidance on prerequisites or typical usage, making it insufficient for a complex mutation tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely references the endpoint. The parameter names and schema descriptions already convey the semantics, so no additional clarification is needed.

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 states the tool updates shipping information ('Atualizar informações de despacho'), which is a specific verb+resource. The endpoint name 'cadastrar.codigo.rastreamento.pedido' clarifies the exact purpose of registering tracking codes for orders, and the included documentation link adds helpful context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'olist_pedido_alterar' or 'olist_nota_fiscal_cadastrar_codigo_rastreamento'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the endpoint and documentation link, but does not explain prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other order-update tools would be more appropriate. Usage is implied from the name and parameters but not explicitly stated.

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