Update saved package

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: partial-update semantics, version creation on each edit, a new returned id that must be used subsequently, and default=true preselection. These are significant operational details an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 front-loads the core edit and partial-update rule, then adds versioning and default semantics in minimal space. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler.

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 14-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical behaviors: partial update, versioned result with a new id, and default preselection. Remaining gaps are limited because the schema supplies enums and constraints, though a fuller explanation of flags and return values would help.

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 schema description coverage at 43%, the description must compensate, and it does group most fields: name, packaging, size, weight, signature, insurance, return label, and flags. However, 'flags' is vague and several parameters, including package_id and dimension/insurance details, are left mostly to 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 uses specific verbs ('Changes', 'Edits') with a specific resource ('Saved Package') and enumerates the editable fields, so the purpose is clear. It implicitly distinguishes updating from creating/deleting/listing, but does not name sibling tools like create_saved_package or delete_saved_package.

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?

It establishes that this tool edits an existing package and that omitted fields retain their values, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus create_saved_package, delete_saved_package, or list_saved_packages. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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