olist_incluir_nota_xml

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

The description explicitly warns that the operation 'altera dados e exige confirmar=true', which discloses the mutating nature and confirmation requirement. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does not disclose other behaviors like response format, error cases, or side effects beyond mutation. The docs link is a pointer but not embedded information.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then giving endpoint, docs, and a necessary warning. Every sentence adds value, so it earns a 5.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete but lacks return-value information and explicit guidance on when this tool should be chosen over similar siblings. The docs link partially compensates, but the description alone leaves gaps.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. It does not add anything beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 includes an invoice via XML ('Incluir Nota via XML API 2.0'), and the endpoint and documentation link reinforce the action. The 'via XML' differentiates it from sibling tools like olist_nota_fiscal_incluir, making the purpose specific and distinguishable.

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 when an XML invoice needs to be included, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as olist_nota_fiscal_incluir or olist_pdv_incluir_nota_xml. The only guideline is the warning that confirmar=true is required, which is more of a prerequisite than a usage context. This warrants a 3.

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