olist_inscricao_incluir

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only repeats the schema's mutation and confirmation requirement. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens if the operation fails. The documentation URL is helpful for further reading but does not add behavioral transparency in the description itself.

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 and well-structured, using three short sentences to convey the API version, endpoint, documentation link, and key requirement. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing explanatory content.

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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide enough context to understand what 'inscricao' refers to, what data is affected, or what the expected outcome is. The documentation link partially mitigates this, but the description alone is inadequate for proper tool selection and 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?

All parameters are covered by the schema (100% coverage). The single parameter 'confirmar' is already well-described with a const true constraint. The description's phrase 'exige confirmar=true' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 restates the endpoint name ('inscricao.incluir') and identifies the domain as 'Inscrição API 2.0', but it does not explain what 'inscricao' means or what operation is actually performed. 'Esta operação altera dados' is a generic tautology that adds no specific resource or action, failing to distinguish it from sibling 'incluir' tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-related mention is the mandatory confirmar=true flag, which is also present in the schema. No scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling operations are provided.

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