Shipping_unlinkCarrierAccount

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only adds the deployment-location note and states the unlink action. It does not disclose whether unlinking is destructive, requires special permissions, or has side effects on existing shipments or labels. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful 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?

At two sentences, it is short and mostly to the point. However, 'Catalog entry.' is cryptic and the ungrammatical 'This API Unlink' reads as template-generated. The deployment note is useful but could be integrated more cleanly with the purpose statement.

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?

The description explains where the code runs but omits how to target the carrier account, expected outcomes, and any prerequisites or side effects. No output schema exists, so none of that context is provided elsewhere. An agent selecting between Shipping_linkCarrierAccount and this tool would not have enough information to invoke it 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?

The schema defines zero properties but allows additionalProperties, so there is no structured parameter information. The description references a 'specified carrier account' without indicating how the account identifier should be supplied, leaving the agent guessing. This is a case where the description fails to compensate for the absent parameter schema.

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 uses the verb 'Unlink' with the resource 'carrier account' and target 'merchant', making the operation clear. The 'Catalog entry' and deployment note add context without obscuring the action. It does not explicitly contrast with Shipping_linkCarrierAccount, but the inverse relation is obvious from the tool name.

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 only usage guidance is that the operation runs in the Kuudo deployment and not in the current environment. There are no conditions for when to use this over Shipping_linkCarrierAccount or other shipping tools, and no exclusions. An agent has to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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