olist_pedido_incluir

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Esta operação altera dados e exige confirmar=true', which warns that the operation is mutating and requires confirmation. However, it does not describe what happens after a successful call, error behavior, or reversibility, leaving some gaps for a write operation.

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 core purpose ('Incluir Pedido'), followed by API details and a documentation link. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every sentence contributes useful context. This is a model of concise technical writing.

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 tool with two parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It provides the endpoint, a documentation link, and critical safety information, but does not mention what a successful response contains, any prerequisites beyond confirmation, or side effects beyond 'altera dados'. The documentation link partially compensates, but the description itself could be more complete.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (pedido and confirmar) with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema provides. The 'confirmar=true' requirement is already present in the schema's const, and the description merely repeats it. The pedido parameter description is vague ('conforme layout') and the tool description does not clarify it.

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 'Incluir Pedido' (include/create order) and identifies it as an API V2 endpoint 'pedido.incluir'. It explicitly notes that the operation alters data, distinguishing it from read-only operations. The inclusion of a documentation link provides additional context, making the purpose unambiguous relative to sibling tools like olist_pedido_alterar.

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 such as olist_pedido_alterar or olist_pedido_obter. It explains that the operation modifies data and requires confirmar=true, but does not mention specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users must infer from the tool name and context that it is for creating new orders.

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