Delete Unmanifested Consignments

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds the unmanifested constraint, which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral details like reversibility, cascading effects, or authentication requirements. With annotations providing the base safety profile, the addition is useful but not comprehensive.

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 sentences plus an args list; no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 the destructive nature (annotations) and full schema coverage, the description covers the main behavioral constraint (unmanifested). It does not describe return values or error handling, but with no output schema, this is acceptable. Adequate for an agent to use safely.

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% for the single parameter 'ids'. The description's 'Args' section merely restates schema info without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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?

Description clearly states 'Deletes multiple unmanifested consignments' using specific verb (delete) and resource (consignments) with a key constraint (unmanifested). It distinguishes from sibling tools like machship_delete_item or machship_delete_pending_consignments.

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?

Explicitly states 'Cannot delete manifested consignments', providing a clear when-not-to-use condition. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the constraint is clear enough for an agent to avoid misuse.

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