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

With annotations only saying readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, the description adds a meaningful behavioral trait: omitting unit_grams makes the returned carton gross a lower bound. It also makes clear the operation mutates carton contents without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core operation is front-loaded, and the optional-weight caveat is placed right after. Every phrase 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 7-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the schema descriptions carry most of the load, but the definition leaves gaps. It does not state whether the carton or packing list must already exist, and the 'note' parameter is undocumented, so an agent could still call it incorrectly.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already documents—description, quantity, unit_grams, and the omit-when-not-weighed rule—and does not clarify the undocumented 'note' parameter or add detail beyond the schema's sku/packing_list matching descriptions.

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 action and resource pair: 'Put a quantity of one item into a named carton', and even covers the key unit_grams caveat. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as unpack_item or carton_add, so it stops short of a 5.

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 intended use is implied by the name, title, and action verb, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to alternatives like unpack_item for removal. The conditional packing instruction ('Leave unit_grams out... lower bound') is procedural, not usage-selection guidance.

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