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

The description discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: it opens a support ticket as a side effect, performs a Draft-to-Shipped state change, and defaults to a dry-run preview unless confirm:true is set. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool, and none contradict the readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the action, side effect, and commit gate are front-loaded in that order. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the precondition, the side effect (support ticket), and the safety gate. It stops short of saying what happens if the shipment is not in Draft or what the confirmation result looks like.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema; the description's mention of carrier/tracking and confirm:true largely restates that content. It adds only the mild clarification that the target shipment belongs to 'this farm'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it adds carrier/tracking to a Draft supplier shipment and flips it to Shipped. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings such as create_supplier_shipment and list_my_supplier_shipments, which handle creation and listing rather than this state transition.

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 gives a clear precondition — the shipment must be this farm's Draft shipment — and explains the commit path via confirm:true. It does not name an alternative tool or say what to do when the shipment is already Shipped, so it is strong but not a full when/when-not routing.

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