pack_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives a payload example and a version routing hint, but does not state what packing actually changes, whether the operation is reversible, if permissions are required, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 is extremely compact: two sentences, one for the operation and payload shape, and one for the version decision rule. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter legacy tool, the description provides the essential payload shape, a version marker, and an explicit routing rule to pack_orders_v2. It does not explain the return value or side effects, but the call can be constructed and the appropriate sibling selected from the information provided.

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 0% and the schema treating order_items as an arbitrary object array, the description's example is the only real parameter documentation. It supplies the exact keys `id` and `shipmentProviderId` and shows the expected array structure. It leaves some details like optionality and value formats implicit, but it goes well beyond 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 the operation (pack order items), identifies the version (v1), and immediately distinguishes itself from pack_orders_v2. Even without title context, the tool's scope and the intended resource are explicit.

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 names pack_orders_v2 as the alternative and provides a concrete criterion: use v2 when get_shipment_providers reports trackingCodeRequired=true. This explicitly tells an agent when not to use this tool and why.

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