olist_nota_fiscal_consumidor_incluir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation modifies data and requires the confirmar flag, which is important. However, it does not describe specific side effects, prerequisites, or the nature of changes beyond the generic 'altera dados'. The schema's confirmar description already mentions 'mutable operation', so the description adds only marginal transparency.

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 front-loaded. It states the purpose, provides the API endpoint and documentation link, and includes the critical behavioral note about data modification and confirmation. There is no fluff or redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The tool has a nested 'nota' object, no output schema, and no annotations. Given this complexity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Nota Fiscal Consumidor' is, what the expected structure of 'nota' should be (beyond 'conforme layout'), what the return value is, or any potential side effects or error conditions. The documentation link provides external help, but the description itself leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, with both 'nota' and 'confirmar' having descriptions. The description text does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely repeats the confirmar=true requirement. Since the schema adequately describes the parameters, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Incluir Nota Fiscal Consumidor' (Include Consumer Invoice), with a specific verb and resource. It also names the API endpoint and provides a documentation link. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'olist_nota_fiscal_incluir', which likely handles a different type of invoice.

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 some usage context: it states that the operation 'altera dados' (modifies data) and requires 'confirmar=true'. This implies that the tool is for submitting consumer invoices and that confirmation is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'olist_nota_fiscal_incluir' or 'olist_incluir_nota_xml'. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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