Change ship date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered elsewhere; the description adds the non-obvious consequence that rates are refetched and prices/estimated delivery can change. It does not mention whether labels are repriced or re-bought, which is the one remaining behavioral 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?

Front-loaded with the operation and effect, then constraints; three short sentences with essentially no filler. The 'ship date on Pirate Ship's buy page' framing is slightly indirect but still earns its place as domain context.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return ('new rates'), the mutation's side effects, and the draft-only precondition. What is missing is minor: behavior on failure or on a batch that has already purchased labels.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the schema documents ship_date but not batch_id; the description compensates partly by implying batch_id must be a draft batch and by restating the ship_dates constraint. It adds marginal meaning beyond the schema rather than full compensation for the undocumented parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Moves a draft batch to another ship date') plus the side effect ('returns its new rates'), and constrains scope to drafts. An agent can distinguish this from create_batch, get_batch, or rename_batch without opening a schema.

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?

'Works on drafts only' gives an explicit precondition, and 'Pick a date from a rate's ship_dates' tells the agent where valid values come from. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. re-creating a batch for non-draft changes), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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