teapplix_apply_packing_planApply packing plan to one or more orders. Adds extra packages or splits orders based on the packing plan configuration. [DEMO]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| TxnIds | Yes | One or more Teapplix order IDs to apply the packing plan to. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| OrdersResult | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds that it 'adds extra packages or splits orders', which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose reversibility, side effects on labels or inventory, or any error conditions. The description adds moderate value beyond 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?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary action, and the second sentence explains the effect. The '[DEMO]' suffix is minor noise but not redundant. Overall, it is appropriately sized with no wasted words.
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?
With one well-documented parameter, high schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations providing the destructive hint, the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not explain what a packing plan is, when it is available, or whether the operation is reversible—though the annotations partially cover the risk. The description is minimally complete for a simple tool, but leaves room for more context.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter TxnIds, which has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.
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 tool's function: applying a packing plan to one or more orders, and specifies the effects (adds extra packages or splits orders). This is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like split_order or revert_split_order, which could overlap in functionality.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives (e.g., using split_order for manual splitting). The usage context is only implied by the function name and description, which is insufficient for an AI agent to decide between this and related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (orders, labels, rates, zones, profiles). A few name pairs like manage_tag vs manage_order_tags and set_order_ship_options vs update_order could be confused, but the descriptions explicitly clarify when to use each.
All tools share the teapplix_ prefix and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_orders, create_order, purchase_label, validate_address). The only deviation is the bare 'help' tool, which is conventional and does not disrupt the pattern.
At 28 tools, the server is slightly over the ideal 3-15 range, but the breadth of shipping operations (orders, labels, rates, manifests, tracking, configuration) justifies the count. It is not bloated.
The tool surface covers the full order-to-shipping lifecycle: order create/update/retrieve, splitting/merging, label purchase and cancellation, rate quotes, tracking, manifesting, address validation, 3PL submission, and configuration (profiles, warehouses, queues, tags). No significant gaps are apparent.