olist_conta_receber_incluir

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

The description discloses that the operation 'altera dados' (changes data) and requires 'confirmar=true', which is relevant since there are no annotations. However, this mostly repeats the schema's confirmar parameter description and does not mention side effects, reversibility, or return behavior. Given the absence of annotations, the description provides minimal but non-zero transparency.

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 brief, containing three short sentences that provide the name, endpoint, documentation link, and a behavioral warning. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details. Some redundancy exists with the tool name, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 'conta' object is completely unspecified ('conforme layout' with additionalProperties), and the description does not elaborate on required fields. No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain return values. The documentation link is helpful but shifts the burden to an external resource; for an agent, the description alone is insufficient.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional information about the 'conta' object structure or the confirmar flag beyond what the schema already states. The 'conta' parameter remains vague, but schema coverage is 100%.

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 operation is 'Incluir Conta a Receber' (include accounts receivable) and identifies the API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling operations like alterar, obter, and baixar. The verb 'incluir' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as olist_conta_receber_alterar or olist_conta_receber_baixar. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The tool name implies a create operation but that is implicit, not explicit guidance.

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