Mark a sale dispatched (seller)

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

With annotations already indicating this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, the description adds useful context: it is seller-only, records an escrow_held-related state, requires GLONGUS_API_KEY, and emphasizes only real tracking should be reported. It does not explain reversibility or error behavior, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the key qualifiers: seller-only and escrow_held. Each sentence adds actionable information about shipped versus collection-only behavior, carrier format, and authentication without filler.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description supplies the critical operational context: seller role, escrow state, API key requirement, conditional tracking fields, and handover behavior. Minor gaps remain around transaction state preconditions and error handling, but the essentials are covered.

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 only 33%, so the description carries most of the burden for carrier and tracking_number. It explains their conditional requirement for shipped listings, gives lowercase carrier examples, and specifies that collection-only handover uses neither; transaction_id is left to the schema, which already describes it.

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: marking a sale dispatched by recording that the item has left the seller's hands. It also distinguishes shipped versus collection-only cases and seller-only access, so an agent can identify the tool's role without opening 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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: seller-only, shipped listings require tracking_number and carrier, and collection-only listings should call it at handover with neither. It does not explicitly name all sibling alternatives such as confirm_handover, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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