Shipping Carrier Options Create

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

Annotations already declare it non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with the required OAuth scope (write_shipping) and API version (2025-03) — genuinely useful operational context for a write call. It stops short of describing validation or failure behavior.

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-loaded with the action verb, then endpoint, scope and version in four short lines with no filler. The endpoint line partly restates the name and the 'Body per the API reference' line is a dangling pointer, but overall it is tight and scannable.

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?

For a create mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, version and endpoint but says nothing about the response, error cases, or what a valid option body requires beyond the loose inline field list. Because the option parameter is an untyped object, 'Body per the API reference' leaves the agent dependent on documentation it may not have.

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%, with both carrier_id and option documented inline (option even enumerates candidate fields), so the baseline of 3 applies. 'Body per the API reference' defers rather than adds meaning — it gives no detail the schema does not already carry, and the option object is loosely typed (additionalProperties: {}), so a pointer to external docs is all that is offered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a carrier option') and the HTTP endpoint, which makes clear it is the create operation on a shipping carrier's options — distinguishable by verb from the sibling options_list/get/update/delete tools. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this versus tiendanube_shipping_carrier_options_update or options_get, nor about prerequisites such as the carrier needing to exist. 'Required scope: write_shipping' is an auth constraint, not usage guidance, so an agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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