olist_contato_alterar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation alters data and requires confirmar=true, which signals mutability, but it omits permissions, reversibility, side effects, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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 very concise at three sentences and includes a documentation link. The opening 'Alterar Contato API 2.0' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the endpoint and key requirement (confirmar=true) are front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 tool has a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the response or return behavior, nor does it clarify the expected structure of the 'contato' object other than pointing to external docs. The documentation link helps, but the description alone is not sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 100% via parameter descriptions. The 'confirmar' parameter is well-described as a mutation confirmation flag, and the description reinforces 'exige confirmar=true'. The 'contato' parameter remains vague ('Dados do contato conforme layout') and the description does not add further details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Alterar') and resource ('Contato'), plus the endpoint name 'contato.alterar'. It distinguishes from siblings like olist_contato_incluir and olist_contato_obter by implying this is for changing existing contact data. However, it doesn't elaborate on what specific fields or scope are affected.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as olist_contato_incluir or olist_contato_obter. The phrase 'altera dados' implies a mutation use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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