olist_expedicao_alterar

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the operation changes data and requires confirmation, which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, response format, or potential side effects, so it is only partially transparent.

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, consisting of three short sentences. However, the first sentence ('Alterar Expedição API 2.0') largely repeats the tool name, making it slightly redundant. Still, the overall length is appropriate and information is front-loaded.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 'expedicao' object whose structure is vague ('conforme layout'). The description does not explain what fields are accepted, what the response looks like, or how to obtain the layout, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly. The provided documentation link is helpful but does not make the description self-contained.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (confirmar and expedicao) with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. The description's mention of 'confirmar=true' is redundant with the schema's 'const': true. No additional meaning is added about the 'expedicao' object's structure.

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 alters expedition data ('Alterar Expedição', 'Esta operação altera dados') and identifies the specific API endpoint. However, it does not specify what aspects of the expedition can be changed, so it is slightly vague on scope.

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 implies usage through its name and the phrase 'altera dados', and it gives a key requirement that 'confirmar=true' is needed to execute. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs other expedition tools or provide any exclusions/alternatives.

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