clm_material_handover_command_create_material_handover

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

Annotations carry only destructiveHint=false, so the description must disclose behavior — and it does so richly: it snapshots the shipment's bookable equipment, consumes a sequential handover number, mutates the shipment's aggregated status/counters on a different entity, and queues an asynchronous background job. These side effects are not derivable from the annotations and materially help an agent predict consequences. No contradiction with destructiveHint=false.

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 is front-loaded and every clause earns its place, since each names a real side effect (snapshot, sequential number, counter/status update, thumbnail job). It is one dense, run-on sentence that would read better split into two, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

Behavioral coverage is strong and the output schema presumably covers return values, but the tool has 8 undocumented parameters and only a minimal annotation set. The description omits parameter meanings and any prerequisites (e.g., required shipment state), leaving an agent unable to construct valid input reliably. Behavior is complete; invocation inputs are not.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters — and it largely fails. None of the eight nested params (Note, Type, Floor, ItemId, Building, ShipmentId, LaydownArea, MaterialPhotos) are defined; the narrative only alludes to 'shipment' (ShipmentId) and 'material photos' (MaterialPhotos), leaving Type/Floor/Building/LaydownArea/ItemId semantics and formats completely unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new material handover for a CLM or Konshub shipment.' It then enumerates the full creation behavior — snapshotting bookable equipment, assigning a sequential handover number, updating aggregated status/counters, and queueing a thumbnail job — which clearly separates it from sibling operations like complete_material_handover or change_material_handover_status.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this when creating a new handover' from the verb 'Creates' and the resource scope 'for a CLM or Konshub shipment.' However, the description never explicitly names alternatives (complete, change status, update planned equipment usage) or states when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference among closely related siblings.

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