olist_nota_servico_incluir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does explicitly disclose that the operation alters data and requires confirmation. However, it repeats the confirmar parameter's schema information and does not add deeper context about side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The endpoint and documentation link are useful but not behavioral disclosures.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence contributes: name/version, endpoint, documentation link, and safety warning. No fluff or redundancy beyond the brief mutation statement.

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?

This is a simple create operation with two required parameters (one nested object) and no output schema. The description provides the endpoint and a documentation link, covering some gaps. However, it does not describe what the response looks like, nor does it explain the 'layout' of the nota object, which is critical for correct invocation. It is minimally viable but lacks depth.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the confirmar requirement. The 'nota' parameter remains vaguely defined as 'Dados da nota conforme layout', matching the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 'Incluir Nota de Serviço' (include service note), a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'obter', 'enviar', and 'consultar' by using the 'incluir' verb. The endpoint reference adds further specificity.

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 implied usage context via the name and the mutation warning, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the operation alters data and requires confirmar=true, which is a precondition rather than a usage guideline. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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