Rebook Manifest Pickup

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) provide some safety context. The description adds that it operates on an 'existing manifest', but lacks details on side effects, cancellation of old pickup, or required permissions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with an Args section, front-loaded with purpose. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or wasted text.

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 simple tool with one nested parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter essentials but omits details on return value, success/failure indicators, or postconditions. Adequate for a minimal viable definition.

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, but the description adds value by explicitly specifying expected fields within the object: 'manifestId and new pickup datetime'. This clarifies the structure beyond the generic schema description.

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 action 'Rebooks' and the resource 'carrier pickup for an existing manifest' with specific examples like missed pickup or changed schedule. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as 'machship_get_manifests' or 'machship_manifest_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?

The description implies usage with examples like 'missed pickup or changed schedule', but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives among the many sibling tools. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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