Alterar status do pedido

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'PRODUÇÃO' and the write-flag requirement, which hints at side effects (a write operation affecting production data), but it does not disclose whether the change is reversible, what status transitions are allowed, or what the response indicates. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 short (one sentence plus a flag warning), which is economic. It front-loads the core action and includes a critical production requirement. However, it omits essential operational details, so the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness—this is under-specification rather than efficient brevity, as with the 'process' example.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single opaque 'request' object parameter. To call it correctly, an agent would need to know the required fields and the valid status values, none of which are provided. The flag warning is useful, but the description is far from sufficient for a tool whose input schema is a black box.

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 schema has one required parameter named 'request', described as an object with additionalProperties: {} and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what fields this 'request' object must contain (e.g., pedido id, target status). With no schema details and no description compensation, an agent cannot infer how to structure the request. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's bare type.

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 states a specific verb ('Altera status') and resource ('pedido'), so it identifies the action. However, it does not clarify what the status change means operationally (e.g., which statuses are possible, whether it confirms or cancels), and 'AlterarPedido' is an opaque system name that adds little. It distinguishes weakly from siblings like pedido_cancelar or pedido_status because it only says 'Altera status' without scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pedido_cancelar or pedido_status. The only contextual note is the production flag requirement (ELEVOR_ALLOW_WRITES=true), which is operational, not usage-related. The description does not state prerequisites (e.g., an existing pedido id or a valid status value) or contrast with sibling cancellation/status-check tools.

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