ShippingLegacy_cancelShipment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the tool cancels a shipment and runs elsewhere, but it does not explain side effects, required permissions, reversibility, idempotency, or what happens to linked records. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 short and front-loads the essential operational warning before stating the action. No sentence is outright redundant, though the separate 'Catalog entry' and 'not here' clauses could be merged without losing meaning.

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?

This is a cancellation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter definition in the schema. The description does not disclose the response shape, failure behavior, prerequisites, or how to supply shipmentId. Given the legacy routing warning, the agent can guess intent but cannot safely construct or invoke the call.

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?

The input schema defines no properties, so the description's mention of 'shipmentId' is the only signal that such a parameter exists and identifies the shipment. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, but it omits the parameter's type, format, requiredness, and how it should be passed — a notable deficiency.

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 identifies the verb and resource: 'Cancel a shipment by the given shipmentId.' This is specific enough to understand the tool's core purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling Shipping_cancelShipment, and the 'Catalog entry' preamble slightly muddles the clarity.

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 phrase 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' provides some usage context by warning that the tool is not intended for direct invocation in this environment. However, it gives no explicit comparison to Shipping_cancelShipment or any other alternative, and it never states when a caller should choose this legacy tool over its modern sibling.

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