olist_contrato_adicional_incluir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explicitly states 'Esta operação altera dados' (this operation changes data) and requires 'confirmar=true', which is key mutability information. However, it lacks details on side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or what happens on success, and the schema's confirmar description already implies mutability. The endpoint and doc link add some operational context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a documentation URL. It front-loads the main purpose, then specifies the endpoint and key behavioral requirement. There is no redundant fluff, though the tool name and endpoint overlap slightly. Every sentence provides useful information.

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 mutating operation with a nested object parameter that accepts arbitrary properties, the description lacks critical context. It does not explain what the 'adicional' layout should contain, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites. The documentation URL is helpful but not self-contained, and there is no output schema to compensate. The agent is left without enough guidance to construct a valid request.

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%, both parameters have descriptions. The 'confirmar' parameter is well-documented with const=true and explains mutable operation confirmation. The 'adicional' parameter description is vague ('Dados do adicional conforme layout') and the tool description adds no further detail, so the heavy lifting remains on the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to high coverage.

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: 'Incluir Adicional de Contrato' (Include Contract Additional), with the specific endpoint 'contrato.adicional.incluir'. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pesquisa' (search), 'excluir' (delete), and 'alterar' (update). The API version is also noted.

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 clear context that this is a mutating operation requiring 'confirmar=true', guiding when to use it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name and sibling list make the use case evident (adding an additional to a contract versus searching or deleting).

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