Shipping Carrier Options Update

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the required 'write_shipping' scope and the API version — but says nothing about which option fields can be changed or how the opaque 'option' payload is interpreted.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the operation and followed by endpoint, scope and version metadata. No filler, though the endpoint line partly duplicates the parameter names already in the schema.

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 mutation tool this is adequate: annotations cover safety, idempotency and open-world behavior, and the schema documents the identifiers. The key gap is the free-form 'option' payload — an agent still cannot tell what fields it may send or whether unspecified fields are cleared, and there is no output schema to indicate what is returned.

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 all three parameters carry descriptions and the baseline is 3. However the central 'option' parameter is an untyped anyOf object/array with no field-level detail in the schema, and the description does not compensate by naming valid updatable fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update a carrier option') and pins the exact endpoint PUT /shipping_carriers/{carrier_id}/options/{option_id}, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as options_create/options_get/options_delete, relying on the name for that split.

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 guidance on when to update versus create or delete an option, no prerequisites, and no statement about what a partial update does. The only contextual hint is the required scope line, which implies permissions but not usage conditions.

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