clm_shipment_command_generate_shipment_pdf

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: if the PDF is not yet generated, it queues background generation and returns immediately without a URL. This async side-effect and immediate-return behavior is valuable context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core behavior and then explains the important conditional case. No filler or redundant information is present.

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?

The asynchronous behavior and conditional return are well covered, and an output schema exists, reducing the need to describe return values. However, the description leaves several optional parameters unexplained, and with 0% schema coverage, an agent may not know how to correctly set PdfId, IsGenerateFull, or UseImpersonation.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only implicitly covers Language and ShipmentId via 'given language' and 'shipment'. It does not explain PdfId, IsGenerateFull, or UseImpersonation, leaving most parameters semantically undocumented.

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 clearly states the action: requesting and returning a generated PDF report for a shipment, with language-specific output. It also describes the conditional async queueing behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling report generators like cockpit or timeline reports by focusing on shipment PDFs.

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 description explains the conditional behavior: whether a PDF is already generated or needs to be queued. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisite conditions such as requiring a ShipmentId or PdfId.

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