update_shipping_zone

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which already provide safety context. The description does not contradict these hints and adds minimal extra behavioral detail, such as that it updates only the named fields. It does not disclose potential side effects, partial update behavior, or return format, but the annotations lower the burden. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the exact purpose without any fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a straightforward update operation.

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 simple CRUD update tool with no output schema and one required parameter, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells what can be updated, while the schema covers parameter details and annotations cover idempotency. It could mention the 'fields' parameter for controlling response fields, but that is documented in the schema and not essential for selection. Overall, this is complete enough for an agent to use 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%, so all parameters (id, name, order, fields) have clear descriptions. The tool description mentions 'name' and 'sort order' (mapping to 'name' and 'order'), but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description aligns with that.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'shipping zone', and specifies the exact fields ('name or sort order') that can be modified. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_shipping_zone, delete_shipping_zone, and update_shipping_zone_method.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when you need to change a shipping zone's name or sort order. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the scope is self-evident; if you need to update other properties or create/delete zones, other sibling tools would be appropriate. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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