update_fulfillment_tracking

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

With no annotations, the description clearly describes the update behavior: partial updates, auto-derivation of tracking URL, and optional notification. It does not cover error handling or response details, but the core behavioral traits are well communicated.

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 (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, then provides usage context and specific behaviors. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers essential aspects: partial update, auto-derivation, notification trigger. It lacks mention of error cases or response format but is complete enough for a tracking update 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?

Despite low schema description coverage (20%), the description compensates by explaining the roles of company, number, url (auto-derived), and notifyCustomer. It clarifies that fulfillmentId is required and that company+number are sufficient, adding meaningful semantic context beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Update or add tracking info on an existing fulfillment after the fact.' It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like create_fulfillment by emphasizing post-hoc usage.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use after create_fulfillment when tracking info is missing or incorrect. It explains that company+number suffices, URL is auto-derived for known carriers, and notifyCustomer triggers email. It also notes that omitted fields remain unchanged, which aids decision-making.

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