issue_shipping_confirmation_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the single-use token behavior and dependencies between parameters (e.g., save_profile_decision required when shipping_address is provided). However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has destructive or irreversible effects, or error conditions.

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 well-structured as a docstring with a clear purpose statement and parameter list. It front-loads the key usage instruction and uses concise, direct language. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the number of parameters.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite thorough. It covers parameter interactions and the workflow context (post-confirmation). However, it lacks details about the return value (e.g., token string) and potential error conditions, which could affect agent decision-making.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds detailed semantics for nearly all 9 parameters. It explains conditions like 'Required when shipping_address is provided' for save_profile_decision, and provides context for each parameter (e.g., default TTL, saved profile usage). This greatly aids an AI agent in correct invocation.

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 'Issue a single-use token after the user confirms shipping details,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like issue_preview_token by focusing on shipping confirmation.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'Call this only after showing the normalized contact/shipping address and selected shipping option to the user... and receiving approval.' It also explains the consequence of not calling it: 'fulfillment_order refuses to place an order without this token.'

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