clm_shipment_command_save_shipment_wizard_material

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: changes apply directly for in-creation shipments, but become a pending draft for already-submitted shipments. This is exactly the kind of state-dependent behavior an agent must know before invoking the tool. It adds meaningful transparency without contradicting the 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?

The description is a single sentence and reasonably concise, front-loading the main action before explaining the two modes. The semicolon-separated conditional structure is somewhat dense but every clause earns its place. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has 10 undocumented optional fields and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior but leaves substantial parameter meaning unexplained. An agent could correctly identify the tool but would struggle to populate fields beyond Materials and RecipientTeamId/Name correctly. The state-dependent behavior is well covered, but the parameter gap makes the definition only partially 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%, and the params object contains 10 distinct fields, yet the description only mentions materials and recipient team. It does not explain the meaning, format, or purpose of fields like CommissionedId, LaydownArea, BookingDate, Floor, Building, or MaterialComment. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description should compensate more heavily but does not.

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 and resource: 'saves the material-selection step of the shipment wizard.' It also clarifies the scope by mentioning materials and recipient team, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like booking-dates, timeslots, and unloadings wizard steps. The state distinction (new shipment vs. submitted shipment) further sharpens what the tool does.

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 clearly identifies the context: use this when saving the material-selection step of a shipment wizard. It explains behavior for both creation and editing scenarios, giving the agent a good sense of when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as the smart-shipment material sibling, but the context is clear enough for a 4.

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