store_update_shipping_carrier

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description merely says 'Update Shipping Carrier' and does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether it replaces all fields or only provided ones, what happens to unmentioned fields, or any side effects. It adds nothing beyond the annotations and the action itself, failing to meet the bar for a mutation tool where the description should clarify partial vs. full replacement or preconditions.

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 a single phrase 'Update Shipping Carrier'—extremely concise but under-specified. It effectively restates the tool name and provides no additional value, so it does not 'earn its place.' While brevity is a virtue, this is too minimal to be informative, crossing into under-specification rather than concise clarity.

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 update tool with no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full, whether the carrier must exist, what happens to omitted fields, or any operational context. Even with full schema coverage, the description fails to provide the operational semantics an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with all 7 parameters fully documented in the input schema, including defaults for altId and altType and the requirement for shippingCarrierId. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it does not compensate for any gaps. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 verb 'Update' and resource 'Shipping Carrier', so the primary action and object are unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like store_create_shipping_carrier and store_delete_shipping_carrier by the verb, but it adds no additional detail about what aspects of the carrier can be updated or its scope. The purpose is clear, though it relies on the name and schema for specifics.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that the carrier must already exist, whether it is a partial or full update, or how it differs from store_create_shipping_carrier or store_update_shipping_rate. The description offers no context for selection among related store tools.

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