olist_pdv_incluir_nota_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and states that the operation alters data and requires confirmar=true. This is useful, but it largely repeats schema constraints and does not mention side effects, permissions, or response behavior.

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 very concise, front-loaded with the operation name, and includes the endpoint and documentation link in a compact format. Every sentence provides useful information without unnecessary fluff.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not mention return values or provide usage alternatives. The 100% schema coverage and documentation link help, but the description is still minimal and leaves operational context to the external docs.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond repeating confirmar=true, which is already in the schema.

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 identifies a PDV-specific operation to include a note via XML, using the verb 'Incluir Nota via XML' and a specific endpoint. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings through the 'PDV' scope, but it doesn't explicitly state how it differs from olist_incluir_nota_xml.

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 like olist_incluir_nota_xml or olist_nota_fiscal_incluir. The PDV scope implies a specific context, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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