ship_all_items

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that this is a POST mutation and that purchaseorder maps to a receive-from-supplier action rather than a ship, which is genuinely useful and non-obvious. It does not say what happens when an unsupported docType is passed (error vs no-op), whether the operation is idempotent or reversible, or what permissions/state are required.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then a compact docType-to-endpoint routing table, then the exclusion rule. Every sentence carries load and nothing is padded.

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?

Covers routing and support boundaries for a mutation tool that has no annotations, which is the most important gap. It leaves open the failure mode for unsupported docTypes and what the call returns (no output schema exists, so return-shape expectations go unaddressed).

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the enum lists 11 docTypes while only 2 actually work, and the description narrows that set and explains the divergent semantics for purchaseorder. documentId remains merely 'Document ID' but the schema already covers 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Ship all items of a document") and adds the exact endpoints per docType, so the agent knows precisely what the call does. The scope word "all" implicitly separates it from ship_items_by_line, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Explicitly says which docTypes are supported (salesorder, purchaseorder) and that all others are not supported in v2 – a clear when-to-use/when-not rule. It does not, however, point to ship_items_by_line as the alternative for partial/line-level shipping.

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