clm_shipment_command_generate_cockpit_daily_report

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the operation is queued for background processing rather than synchronous, and the requesting user receives a notification upon completion. It does not clarify what the destructiveHint refers to (e.g., overwriting an existing report file at the same PdfName or storage ID), which prevents a 5.

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?

A single 25-word sentence with the core action front-loaded ('Queues generation of the cockpit daily report PDF'), followed by content scope and then the async/notification behavior. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation data.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the tool has 11 opaque parameters at 0% description coverage and a destructiveHint=true side-effect flag, yet the description addresses neither parameter semantics nor what the destructive behavior impacts. For a command with this complexity, the high-level purpose alone is insufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it explains none of the 11 parameters (FileId, PdfName, Language, RaiseEvent, FooterHeight, HeaderHeight, MetaDataList, PdfStorageId, RaiseNotification, TemplateStorageId, PdfGenerationProfileId, PageNumberHorizontalAlign). An agent has no guidance on what these control or which, if any, are needed for a sensible default invocation.

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 names a specific verb+resource: 'Queues generation of the cockpit daily report PDF' with an explicit content scope (scheduled shipments, equipment, ad-hoc shipment summaries). This clearly differentiates it from sibling clm_shipment_command_generate_shipment_pdf and the timeline Excel report tools, since the report type and subject matter are unambiguous.

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: call this when you need the cockpit daily report generated in the background. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement about prerequisites (e.g., whether a template or generation profile must already exist).

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