Shipping Carriers Create

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes auth requirements ('Required scope: write_shipping'), the concrete HTTP endpoint, and the fact that the callback is invoked at checkout to quote live rates — real context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about duplicate-name handling or failure modes.

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, front-loaded lines: purpose, endpoint, scope, version. Every line carries actionable information and nothing is repeated from 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 create tool with no output schema, the description plus a fully-covered schema tells an agent everything needed to construct a valid request, including scope and version. It stops short of explaining what the callback endpoint must return or what happens to omitted optional fields like types/active.

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 five parameters are already self-documenting, including the nested passthrough object. The description only reinforces that a callback is central to the call; it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 ('Register') plus the resource ('shipping carrier') and adds the defining behavioral detail: a live-rate callback. This clearly separates it from the sibling list/get/update/delete carrier tools without needing the schema.

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 prerequisite (write_shipping scope) and pinned API version (2025-03) are given, which is useful operational context, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over tiendanube_shipping_carriers_update or tiendanube_shipping_carrier_options_create, and no preconditions such as prior carrier registration.

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