clm_shipment_command_save_shipment_wizard_booking_dates

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context consistent with those hints: for an already-submitted shipment, the change is 'stored as a pending draft' rather than applied immediately. This prevents an agent from assuming the edit takes immediate effect. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentence with a front-loaded verb+resource followed by a colon-separated two-case behavior split. No filler or redundant wording; the semicolon structure makes the direct-apply vs. pending-draft distinction easy to parse, 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?

The description covers the core purpose and the critical draft-vs-direct behavior, and the output schema plus annotations handle return values and safety. However, with ten parameters and zero schema-level documentation, the unexplained weather and schedule-temperature parameters are a real gap, and the near-identical smart-shipment sibling is not addressed. For a tool of this complexity, the description is adequate but not complete.

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 carry the parameter-semantics burden. It maps three of ten parameters to roles (BookingDate, IsExpressShipment, LeanCard). ShipmentId, TimeZone, and TimeZoneOffset are reasonably self-naming, but WeatherSymbolValue, WeatherSymbolTextDe, WeatherSymbolTextEn, and ScheduleTimeTemperature receive no explanation whatsoever, leaving their purpose in the booking-date step unclear.

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+resource ('Saves the booking date step of the shipment wizard'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling wizard-step tools (material, timeslots, unloadings, other_info). It further sharpens the scope by naming the exact fields involved (booking date, express-shipment flag, lean card) and the two shipment states it handles, so an agent knows precisely which step and which context this tool covers.

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 gives clear contextual guidance by spelling out the two shipment states — 'still being created' vs. 'already-submitted shipment being edited' — and what happens in each, so the agent knows the tool applies to both paths. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions; notably it never disambiguates from the near-identically named sibling clm_smart_shipment_command_save_shipment_wizard_booking_dates.

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