Create Pending Consignment

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the created record is in a draft/unrated/unassigned state and is later convertible to a full consignment, which tells the agent this is a non-terminal, non-destructive stage-setting write. It stops short of describing validation failures, required permissions, or what happens to the record if quoting fails.

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 core definition is front-loaded in the first sentence and the second sentence adds lifecycle context rather than filler. The trailing 'Args' block marginally duplicates the schema's own property description, which keeps it from a 5.

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 create tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough: what is created, its lifecycle state, and how it is later used. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists; only the nested object's required sub-fields remain opaque.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its fields (companyId, fromAddress, toAddress, items, reference1, reference2). The description's 'Args' block lists essentially the same field set ('companyId, from/to address, items, references, etc.'), adding almost no new meaning beyond the schema, 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 ('Creates a pending consignment') and then defines what a pending consignment actually is: 'a draft/staging consignment that hasn't been rated or assigned to a carrier yet.' That definition distinguishes it from the sibling machship_create_consignment, though it never names that sibling directly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than 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 line 'Pending consignments can be converted to full consignments after quoting' implies the workflow (stage now, quote, then finalize), which is useful implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus machship_create_consignment or machship_create_quote, and no prerequisites, exclusions, or error conditions are stated.

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