update_document_tracking

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It usefully discloses the endpoints (PUT) and the error behavior for unsupported types, but does not describe mutation side effects (e.g., whether tracking fields are replaced or merged), permission requirements, or what a successful response looks like.

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 core purpose and support matrix are front-loaded and efficient. However, the final sentence about a discrepancy with a 'task brief' and 'normative annex tables' is internal rationale that does not help an agent invoke the tool and slightly dilutes focus.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the docType support matrix and error behavior but omits what happens on success, whether optional fields replace existing tracking data, and any auth/prerequisite context. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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. The description adds critical meaning beyond the schema by revealing that, despite the enum listing 11 docTypes, only two actually work—this is essential for correct parameter selection, though it does not elaborate on carrier/trackingNumber semantics.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Update tracking information for a document') and immediately scopes it via API version and supported docTypes, distinguishing it from the generic update_document sibling. An agent can identify exactly what operation this performs.

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 states that only salesorder and waybill are supported and that all other docTypes have no v2 equivalent and will throw an error. This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule, leaving no ambiguity about the supported cases.

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