Update Shipment Order

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false), non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description adds valuable context by stating that the full intended state of required fields must be provided, indicating a replace-style update rather than a partial patch. It also explains how to handle extra fields via additional_fields.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, followed by the critical instruction about required fields and a brief note about additional fields. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested arrays, no output schema), the description covers the essential inputs but is thin on return details and the handling of optional fields. It mentions the response only as 'the update response from Logiwa,' and does not explain what happens to omitted optional fields, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 covers 70% of parameters, and the description adds meaning by listing the required fields and emphasizing the 'full intended state' semantics, which is not clear from the schema alone. It also clarifies the role of additional_fields as an escape hatch for unexposed fields, though this is already in the 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 clearly states 'Update an existing shipment order' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, cancel, and get. It also specifies the requirement to provide the UUID identifier, which further clarifies its purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (updating existing orders) and implies not to use it for creating/cancelling via the sibling list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'existing shipment order' phrasing and the requirement of an identifier make the use case unambiguous.

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