olist_conta_receber_alterar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states the operation is mutating and requires confirmation, which is useful. However, it lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or response behavior, keeping it at a moderate level.

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 relatively short but includes redundant API version and endpoint details that do not add value. It is front-loaded but could be more concise by removing these extras.

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 description does not explain how the account receivable is identified or what fields can be changed. Given the minimal schema and no output schema, the information is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool beyond knowing it requires confirmation.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter (confirmar) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating confirmar=true, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool alters 'Conta a Receber' using the verb 'alterar', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'incluir' (include) and 'obter' (get). However, it does not elaborate on what specific data is changed, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description only mentions that the operation alters data and requires confirmar=true, which is a prerequisite rather than a guideline for when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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