store_create_shipping_carrier

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Create'. Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not idempotent, but the description does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It simply restates the action, providing zero value beyond what is available from annotations and the tool name.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only three words. While there is no wasted text, it also contains no front-loaded critical information or hints. It mirrors the tool name and title, making it redundant. True conciseness would complement the schema, but this is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior, return values, or why one would use it. It does not explain what happens upon creation, any constraints (e.g., callbackUrl must be public—though that is in schema), or how the tool integrates with other shipping tools. The description is incomplete for an agent to make an informed call without assumptions.

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%—all six parameters (name, altId, altType, services, callbackUrl, allowsMultipleServiceSelection) have descriptive comments. The description itself does not elaborate on any parameters, but the high coverage means the baseline is 3. The schema already documents required and optional fields, so no additional explanation is needed here.

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 'Create Shipping Carrier' clearly states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'store_create_shipping_rate' and 'store_create_shipping_zone' by naming 'Carrier' explicitly, leaving no ambiguity about the object being created. However, it lacks any additional qualifiers or context that would elevate it to 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or related tools such as 'store_update_shipping_carrier' or 'store_list_shipping_carriers'. The agent is left to infer the usage solely from the schema and name, which is insufficient.

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