Update shipping async

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the async nature, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not explain how to retrieve the async result, what side effects occur, or any error/failure behavior. The reference to the official models format is a constraint but not a full disclosure.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and the async qualifier. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it is so brief that it omits crucial details, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

As an async mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain how the async process works and how to check the result (e.g., via rms_get_shipping_async_result). It does not mention any follow-up steps, potential failure modes, or return behavior, leaving the context incomplete.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter 'models', and the description only says 'models は公式 IF の updateOrderShippingModels 形式' (models are in the official IF updateOrderShippingModels format). This points to external documentation but does not explain the parameter's structure, required fields, or meaning. Thus it barely compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 '発送完了報告（非同期）' (shipping completion report, async), clearly indicating the tool's action and its asynchronous nature. This distinguishes it from the synchronous sibling rms_update_shipping, though it does not explicitly use the verb 'update'.

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 mentions '非同期' (async), implying the tool is for asynchronous shipping updates, but it provides no explicit contrast with the synchronous rms_update_shipping or any alternative. It also references the official IF format but gives no further usage context.

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