Fulfillment Tracking Events Update

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds permissions and versioning context, which is valuable, but it does not say whether the update is a partial merge or a replacement, nor what happens to fields omitted from the event payload.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action, followed by endpoint, scope, and version metadata. Nothing is padded, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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?

No output schema and lightweight annotations mean the description needn't explain returns, and the ID parameters are fully covered. However, the free-form `event` payload — the core of what is being updated — is left entirely unexplained, which is the main completion gap for a mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline applies. The URI template restates the ID hierarchy already present in the schema, but the opaque `event` object's acceptable fields are undefined in both places.

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?

"Update a tracking event" is a specific verb plus resource, and the HTTP path disambiguates which identifiers scope it (order → fulfillment order → tracking event). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling create/delete tracking-event tools, but the names make the distinction largely self-evident.

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 stated required scope (write_fulfillment_orders) and the API version give a useful precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, nor a pointer to sibling tools such as tiendanube_fulfillment_tracking_events_create or _delete.

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