olist_pedido_estornar_contas

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does state the operation 'altera dados' (changes data) and requires confirmar=true, providing some transparency about mutation. However, it omits important behavioral details such as irreversibility, side effects on financial records, required permissions, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose ('Estornar Contas do Pedido'). The endpoint sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the documentation URL is useful but lengthy. Overall, it is concise with minimal waste, though the redundancy slightly reduces efficiency.

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 is simple with only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives the essential purpose and the confirmation requirement, which covers the minimal invocation requirements. However, it lacks context about the business effect of the reversal, any prerequisites (e.g., order status), and whether the operation is reversible, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, with both id and confirmar fully described. The description reinforces the mutable nature and confirmar=true, but adds little beyond the schema. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not compensate with additional parameter semantics.

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 action ('Estornar Contas do Pedido' - reverse order accounts) and identifies the API V2 endpoint. The verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like olist_pedido_lancar_contas and olist_pedido_estornar_estoque, though it does not explicitly describe what 'estornar contas' entails in business terms.

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 mention that the operation requires confirmar=true, which is a prerequisite, but does not state the context (e.g., when an order's accounts have been posted and need reversal) or specify exclusions. Sibling tools like olist_pedido_lancar_contas are not referenced.

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