Update sender (after shipping)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the generic purpose and gives no details about side effects, permission requirements, restrictions after shipping, or what 'updating sender' actually changes. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single short phrase, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is essentially a restatement of the name and provides no additional structure or elaboration. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise, so it doesn't fully earn its place.

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 annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool needs more context to be properly understood. The description does not explain what 'sender' means in this domain, what constraints exist after shipping, or what the expected response is. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'order_number' and 'sender' are named in the schema but their meanings, formats, or constraints are not described. The nested object 'sender' is completely opaque, so the description adds no semantic value.

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 '送付先情報更新（発送後）' clearly states the action (update sender information) and the context (after shipping), distinguishing it from the sibling tool rms_update_sender. However, it simply translates the name/title rather than adding new explanatory detail, so it is clear but not richly descriptive.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The presence of a sibling tool rms_update_sender (without 'after_shipping') suggests a timing distinction, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose one over the other or mention any prerequisites or conditions.

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