olist_expedicao_concluir_agrupamento

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation alters data and requires confirmation, which is a key safety trait. However, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or required permissions, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, leading with the purpose and then providing the endpoint, documentation link, and mutation warning. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the endpoint is somewhat redundant with the name.

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 mutation tool with only two scalar parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what the operation does, its mutating nature, the confirmation requirement, and provides a documentation link for further detail. Minor omissions like specific business impact are not critical given the simplicity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic detail about the parameters themselves, only mentioning confirmar=true in the mutation warning, which is already 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 function with a specific verb and resource ('Concluir agrupamento de expedições'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'incluir_agrupamento' and 'pesquisar_agrupamentos'. The endpoint name further clarifies the exact operation.

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 operation mutates data and requires confirmar=true, implying it should be used when concluding a grouping with confirmation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide any exclusions.

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