Sincronizar produtos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns that 'changed' mode advances the server cursor, which is a critical side effect. It also states that each product includes stock and variations, giving the agent a useful preview of the response. Missing details like pagination or permissions are not disclosed, but the most important behavior is covered.

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 compact and information-dense, using a concise pipe-separated format for modes. Every sentence adds value: the operation, the mode semantics, the side-effect warning, and the response shape. No filler or redundancy.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational choices, the side-effect of 'changed', and the returned product structure. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination or the exact response envelope, but for this level of complexity it is adequately 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 schema only provides enum values for 'mode' and a brief description for 'since', so the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining what each mode does and clarifying the 'since' date format. This compensates for the 50% schema coverage. It does not specify validation rules like whether 'since' is ignored for 'all' or 'changed', but the core parameter meanings are clear.

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 core operation: 'Puxa produtos do e-commerce' (pulls products from e-commerce) and enumerates the three sync modes by name. It is specific about resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like produto_get or produtos_grades.

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 clear context on how to choose each mode: 'all' for a full dump, 'since' for updates after a date, and 'changed' for an incremental delta. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a single-tool sync operation, the mode-level guidance is sufficient.

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