olist_pedido_alterar

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 state that the operation 'altera dados' (changes data) and requires 'confirmar=true', which is a safety-related behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, permissions required, or what specific changes are made. This is minimal coverage for a mutation tool.

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, consisting of three short sentences that state the operation name, endpoint, documentation link, and core behavior. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the essential action. Slight improvement could be made by including the object of the alteration (order) more explicitly, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Despite having only 2 parameters, one is a nested object ('id') with unrestricted properties (additionalProperties: {}), and there is no output schema. The description does not explain how to construct the 'id' object, what the response format is, or error scenarios. This leaves significant gaps for an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The description only reiterates that 'confirmar=true' is required, which adds no new information beyond the schema. It does not help clarify the structure of the 'id' object parameter, which remains vague.

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 operation is 'Alterar Pedido' (change order) and 'altera dados' (changes data), identifying it as a mutation tool for orders. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like olist_pedido_incluir (create) and olist_pedido_obter (read). However, it does not explicitly mention 'sale order' in the description text, relying on the parameter description for that context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, comparison with related tools, or typical scenarios. The only usage hint is the implicit need for an existing order ID and confirmation, but no explicit direction is given.

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