pack_orders_v2

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool packs order items and when it is required. It does not disclose side effects such as status changes, validation requirements, whether it creates shipments, or any destructive/irreversible behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the purpose and use condition in the first clause followed by a compact JSON example. It loses one point because the example is terse and the orderItems field is left as an undefined ellipsis.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate for understanding the basic call shape, but it leaves gaps: no detail on what orderItems entries should be, whether all nested fields are required, and what the operation does beyond the pack action. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is a minimum passing level.

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 schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the inline JSON example is essential and adds real meaning: packages is an array of objects containing orderItems, shipmentProviderId, and trackingCode. It does not specify types or requiredness of those nested fields, but it compensates for the empty schema better than most.

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 names a specific action ('Pack order items') and a resource (order items), and distinguishes this v2 from its siblings by the caller-supplied tracking code requirement. This makes it immediately identifiable against pack_orders and other shipping-related tools.

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 phrase 'required when the shipment provider needs a caller-supplied tracking code' gives a clear invocation condition. It does not explicitly name the alternative (likely pack_orders) or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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