create_shipment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the creation act and the source entity (order), without describing side effects (e.g., order status changes, inventory updates), required permissions, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a create tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded, and contains no redundant 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is minimal and does not explain the return value, the shipment-creation workflow (e.g., draft vs. validated), or how it relates to sibling tools like validate_shipment and deliver_shipment. While the schema covers parameter meanings, the description lacks operational context needed for full completeness.

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 already documents 5 of 6 parameters with descriptions (e.g., 'ID de la commande source', 'Date de livraison ISO 8601'), and coverage is 83%. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The note_public parameter lacks a description, but the schema gap is not compensated by the 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 tool's function: 'Créer un bon de livraison/expédition depuis une commande' (create a delivery note/shipment from an order). It uses a specific verb ('Créer') and resource ('bon de livraison/expédition') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_shipment or deliver_shipment.

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 context by specifying 'depuis une commande' (from an order), indicating the input source. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., order must exist) or exclusions. This falls into 'implied usage' with no clear guidance.

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