Update Consignment Tracking Statuses

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds 'manually' and an example, but does not disclose side effects like whether statuses are appended or overwritten, or any restrictions on status values. It adds marginal value beyond 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?

The description is very short and efficient, with one sentence and a bullet-like list. It avoids fluff, but the structure could be improved (e.g., separating purpose from parameters). Still, it earns its place.

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?

The description lacks details about return values (no output schema), how statuses are applied (overwrite vs append), and any validation on status values. Given the mutation nature, more behavioral context is needed, making it incomplete.

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%, so the description's mention of sub-parameters is redundant. The example 'e.g. mark as delivered' hints at a valid status but does not add constraints or meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. It meets the baseline but adds little extra value.

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 states the tool manually updates tracking statuses, using verb 'updates' and resource 'tracking statuses' with an example. This clearly conveys the action but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_consignment' that might also modify consignment fields.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools cover related operations (e.g., get_consignment_statuses for reading, edit_consignment for other updates).

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