Batch Update Orders

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (mutating, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it states the cross-field requirement that at least one of `product_code` or `carrier_id` must accompany `order_ids`, describes the return shape (count of updated orders), and enumerates 400/404/401 failure conditions. It does not say whether partially-matching order sets are all-or-nothing on the 404 case, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loading the one-line summary before the labelled blocks is good structure, and the parameter, return and error sections are easy to scan. There is minor redundancy, since the 'When to use' paragraph re-explains what the opening sentence already said, but nothing is padded for its own sake.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still names what comes back (update count), and combined with the documented error codes, the inter-parameter constraint, and the required/optional split, an agent has everything needed to construct a correct call or interpret a failure. Nothing material is left unstated for a 3-parameter batch mutation.

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 descriptions of `order_ids`, `carrier_id` and `product_code` are largely a restatement of structured data, which sets the baseline at 3. The one genuine addition is the constraint that at least one of `product_code` or `carrier_id` should be supplied — a rule the schema does not encode — plus a concrete example value, but this is a modest increment.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource — applying one carrier/service product across a batch of orders — which an agent can match to the task immediately. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling `starshipit_update_orders_bulk` or `starshipit_update_order`, leaving an ambiguity an agent must resolve on its own.

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 'When to use' block gives concrete triggering scenarios (carrier rate change, bulk service-level selection in a fulfilment workflow), which is clear positive guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at the bulk/individual update siblings as alternatives, so routing between them is left inferred.

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