Update and Reprice Consignment

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds that it triggers repricing, but lacks details on side effects, validation, or safety of repeated execution. 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the key action and use case. The 'Args:' line adds parameter info efficiently. Could benefit from clearer structure or bullet points.

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 on return values, error conditions, or how to retrieve updated results. The parameter body is unspecified, requiring the agent to guess its structure. Given the complexity and absence of output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 structure for the 'body' object beyond a generic description. The main description adds hints that the body should include consignmentId and items, but is still vague. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description provides marginal improvement.

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 states the tool updates consignment items on a carrier invoice entry and triggers repricing, with a specific purpose of reconciling carrier invoice discrepancies. It distinguishes from sibling update tools like machship_edit_consignment by mentioning the connection to carrier invoices.

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 explicitly says 'Use for reconciling carrier invoice discrepancies', providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for similar operations.

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