set_default_ship_from_addressSets a Ship From Address as the default for new shipments, rate quotes, and pickups so future orders start from that address automatically.
Makes one Ship From Address the default for new shipments and rate quotes.
New shipments, get_rates and pickups start from the default Ship From Address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address_id | Yes | id from list_ship_from_addresses. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming what the setting affects downstream, but omits the key behavioral question for a 'set default' operation: what happens to the previously default address.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the consequence. The second sentence partly restates the first, but the added 'get_rates and pickups' detail earns its place.
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?
For a one-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient: purpose, scope and downstream effects are covered. The gap is the unstated effect on the existing default address and whether any confirmation is returned.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented with a clear provenance pointer ('id from list_ship_from_addresses'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: makes one Ship From Address the default, which is clearly distinct from create/update/delete_ship_from_address siblings in the list. It does not explicitly name those siblings or state the single-default constraint, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 second sentence describes downstream impact (new shipments, get_rates, pickups), which implies why an agent would call this, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. update_ship_from_address vs. this) for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.