Shipping Carriers Update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety/mutability profile is covered structurally. The description's genuine addition is the required scope 'write_shipping' and the API version, which are real prerequisites absent from the annotations. It does not disclose partial-update semantics (are omitted fields left unchanged or cleared) or what additional_fields does to the request body.

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 with the operation and target front-loaded, then endpoint, scope and version. No filler, though roughly half the text is API plumbing that could be compressed into one line.

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 exists, so the description would benefit from saying what the update returns or whether partial bodies are merged. For a 6-parameter mutation with a nested free-form additional_fields escape hatch, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about update semantics.

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 every parameter including id, types, callback_url and additional_fields is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 ('Update a shipping carrier') and pins the exact endpoint PUT /shipping_carriers/{id}, which unambiguously separates it from the get/create/delete siblings. It stops short of saying what updating actually affects, but the operation is identifiable at a glance.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus tiendanube_shipping_carriers_get or _create, and no statement of preconditions (must the carrier already exist, must it be inactive first). The only usage-adjacent information is the required scope, which is an authorization fact rather than a usage rule.

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