olist_contato_incluir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation 'altera dados' and requires 'confirmar=true', which conveys that it is a mutating operation needing confirmation. However, it does not disclose whether it creates or updates (though the name suggests create), nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or response behavior.

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 tool's purpose. It includes a documentation link and explicitly mentions the mutability and confirmation requirement. No wasted words or redundant content.

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?

For a simple create-contact tool with two parameters, the description is moderately complete. It warns about the mutation and confirmar, but lacks details about the contact payload structure, expected return values, or additional context. The documentation link helps, but the description alone is insufficient for full operational understanding.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirmar=true requirement but does not add extra meaning about the 'contato' object, which is under-specified in the schema (additionalProperties: {}). No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 identifies the action as 'Incluir Contato' (include contact) and provides the API endpoint, making it obvious this is a contact creation operation. It is not purely tautological because it adds the endpoint and mutability note, but it does not explicitly elaborate on what a contact is or fully distinguish from the update tool.

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 like olist_contato_alterar. The name and 'altera dados' imply a write operation, but there is no context for when to choose this over other contact-related tools.

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