awb_update_status

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the mutation behavior ('update') and a key side effect: if update_order_status is true, it also updates the parent order status. This adds context beyond the basic update action. However, it does not discuss error handling or whether the AWB must exist.

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?

The description is concise: a one-line summary followed by a parameter list in docstring format. No unnecessary text; every sentence provides value.

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?

Given three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema likely covering return values, the description covers the parameters and the side effect of update_order_status. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., AWB must exist) but is otherwise sufficient 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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains awb_id as 'Internal AWB record ID', status as a carrier-specific string with examples, and update_order_status's effect. This adds meaning that the schema (with only titles) lacks.

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 clearly states 'Update the delivery status of an AWB.' This distinguishes it from siblings like awb_delete (delete AWB) and order_update_status (update order status). The verb 'update' and resource 'delivery status of an AWB' are specific and unambiguous.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like order_update_status. Usage is implied by the tool's name and parameter descriptions, but no 'when not to use' or alternative tools are mentioned.

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