fba_draft_remeasure_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the letter's stance (seller-provided hand measurements, no claim that a scan proves anything), the [ADD: ...] placeholders that must be replaced, the warnings that may be returned, and the 'Amazon's own measurement governs' caveat. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation-adjacent drafting tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and required inputs, then behavior, then returns. Dense and mostly waste-free, though a few sentences are long and the middle paragraph could be split for faster scanning.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description still names the key return fields (subject, body, checklist, warnings, channel, deadline) and states submitted is always false. For a 10-param tool with a prerequisite dependency, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0% across 10 params, but the description explains audit, asin/sku/fnsku, seller_name, amazon_dims_text/measured_dims_text (with the format example '18.5 x 12 x 3 in'), measurement_method, and the tone values. Only request_reimbursement is left implicit, so the coverage gap is nearly closed.

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+resource with scope: 'Draft (never send) a Seller Support remeasurement request.' It also names fba_audit_listing as the source of the audit dict, so an agent can place it precisely relative to siblings like fba_audit_listing and fba_measure_package.

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?

Gives a clear entry condition (pass the dict returned by fba_audit_listing as audit) and a hard constraint (never send; submitted is always false). It stops short of explicitly contrasting alternatives such as fba_tier_headroom or fba_fee_estimate, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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