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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (advancing status, recording courier/tracking when shipping) and access control. However, it omits details like error handling, side effects (e.g., email send behavior beyond the parameter), and constraints on status transitions.

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 three concise sentences: first states the core action, second notes access control, third lists valid statuses. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the essential behavior and constraints. However, it lacks information about return values, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., order must exist). Given the absence of an output schema, more context could help an agent understand what to expect after 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds context about when courier/tracking are required (when status=shipped) and explains the notify parameter's purpose and default. This is useful but not extensive; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it advances ship_status and records courier/tracking, specifying the resource (physical order) and action. It lists valid statuses. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like mu_ship_order or mu_ship_import_tracking, which could lead to confusion.

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 mentions 'Owner-only' and the required status values, giving some context on when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives among siblings, leaving room for ambiguity.

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