Criar pedido (e-commerce)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it flags that this is a mutating operation ('cria pedido/pré-venda'), discloses the consequential side effect on stock ('baixa estoque'), and warns it is gated to environments with ELEVOR_ALLOW_WRITES=true. It adds real context beyond the schema, even if rollback/failure behavior is not addressed.

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?

Two compact sentences, each earning its place: the first packs verb, resource, channel, and side effect; the second delivers the critical production write-gate requirement. No filler or restated schema information.

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 missing pieces are substantial for a mutations with a complex nested parameter: the structure of the 'pedido' object is completely undocumented, there is no output schema, no alternative-vs-pedido routing, and no error/failure semantics. The stock-decrement warning and write-gate information add real value, but an agent likely cannot construct a correct request without external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. The only parameter, 'pedido', is a free-form object (additionalProperties: {}) with no defined fields, and the description nowhere explains what fields the order object requires. The agent knows only the parameter's name and the fact that it represents an e-commerce order.

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 ('Cria'), a resource ('pedido/pré-venda no ERP'), and the channel ('via Ren9veCommerce'), plus the side effect '(baixa estoque)'. It clearly distinguishes from query/status siblings via the e-commerce channel, though it does not explicitly name pedido_criar_v2 as the overlapping alternative.

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?

It provides a clear precondition for use ('PRODUÇÃO — requer ELEVOR_ALLOW_WRITES=true'), which tells the agent when this write can actually be executed. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance relative to pedido_criar_v2 or the other order tools, so routing to it over alternatives is left to inference.

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