M.Video FBS exemplar set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses a critical safety trait: "Defaults to dry-run; live write requires confirm." This is valuable for a mutation tool, though it does not cover permissions, reversibility, or response 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 two sentences: purpose first, then safety. No wasted words, front-loaded, and every clause earns 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 tool's complexity (nested request object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It omits what 'exemplar/marking data' includes, how to structure the `request`, and any expected response, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% coverage and the description does not explain the main `request` object, which is complex and recursive. It only indirectly clarifies `dry_run` and `confirm` via the safety note, leaving the core parameter semantics undefined.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: "Set required FBS exemplar/marking data." This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like order list/status/labels/shipment tools.

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 intended use is implied: use when you need to set FBS exemplar/marking data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, so it relies on the agent inferring usage from the purpose.

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