olist_crm_alterar_situacao_acao

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Esta operação altera dados e exige confirmar=true' (this operation changes data and requires confirm=true), which signals mutation and a safety confirmation. However, it lacks details about destructiveness, reversibility, permissions, or side effects, leaving a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It earns its place by including the endpoint and documentation link, though the long URL could be considered excess. It is still concise and scannable.

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?

Despite a simple 3-parameter schema, the tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema. The description only covers basic purpose and the confirm flag, but omits usage context, potential consequences, and any guidance on valid inputs (like situation codes). It feels incomplete for safe invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only repeats the confirm=true requirement, which is already documented as a boolean const in the schema.

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: 'Alterar situação da ação do assunto do CRM API 2.0' (change status of CRM action), with a specific verb and resource. It also names the exact endpoint, which helps distinguish the operation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'alterar_estagio_assunto'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions that the operation alters data and requires confirm=true, but does not explain when this is the right choice among the many CRM/sibling tools. This is a missed opportunity given similar-sounding tools exist.

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