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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds important context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool creates shipments with the chosen split and fees and returns shipment_ids, and that confirmation must only happen after explicit user approval. It could further specify reversibility or error handling, but it is quite detailed.

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 front-loaded with a clear action statement and then provides essential details in a logical flow. It is somewhat dense with parenthetical asides, but every sentence earns its place by clarifying behavior, usage, or parameters.

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?

Given the tool is a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description appropriately explains what happens (shipments created, IDs returned) and when to use it. It also covers the two operational modes and post-confirmation steps. It omits some edge cases (e.g., what happens if confirm_id is missing), but overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 covers 60% of parameters with descriptions, but the description adds crucial meaning by explaining how kind ('packing' or 'placement') pairs with the appropriate option_id and what each combination does. It also notes that option_id comes from generate_inbound_options. This compensates for the schema gaps, though inbound_plan_id is not described in either, keeping it from a 5.

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 ('Conferma') and resource ('un'opzione del piano inbound FBA'), and distinguishes two modes (packing vs placement) with their effects. It also names a sibling tool (set_packing_information) to clarify the next step, so the agent can easily tell it apart from generate_inbound_options and others.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Conferma SOLO dopo che l'utente ha visto fee e split e ha approvato esplicitamente.' It also clarifies the two scenarios (packing vs placement) and what each requires, and notes that transport/labels are completed in Seller Central, providing clear boundaries.

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