olist_nota_servico_enviar

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that this is a mutating operation and requires confirmation, which is key behavioral context. It does not detail other side effects like email delivery or status changes, but the schema's 'enviarEmail' param covers some of that.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, endpoint, and mutation warning. The first two sentences are slightly redundant ('API 2.0' appears twice), but overall efficient. Documentation link adds value.

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 simple 3-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, mutation, and confirmation requirement. However, it lacks what happens after sending (return value or status change) and doesn't relate to sibling tools or prerequisites. Documentation link mitigates but isn't inline.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no extra semantic beyond re-stating that 'confirmar' must be true, which is already captured by the schema's 'const': true. Thus, baseline 3.

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 opens with 'Enviar uma NFS-e API 2.0', giving a clear verb and resource. It also specifies the endpoint 'nota.servico.enviar'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'incluir' or 'consultar', so the agent might not know exactly when to prefer 'enviar'.

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?

It warns that 'Esta operação altera dados e exige confirmar=true', which implies use requires confirmation, but it doesn't provide explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. The documentation link is provided but not inline guidance.

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