clm_shipment_command_save_shipment_wizard_other_info

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it persists data, finalizes the shipment, and triggers a background command for post-save processing. This discloses a side effect that an agent would not otherwise know.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then adds behavioral detail about persistence and the background command. It is compact with no real redundancy, though the parenthetical list makes it slightly dense.

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?

For a command with 13 optional nested parameters, no parameter documentation, and a finalizing side effect, the description is too thin. It does not explain the wizard flow, what each responsible-person object should contain, when SaveAsDraft matters, or what post-save processing entails. The output schema may cover return values, but the operational context is incomplete.

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 only mentions on-site responsible person and sustainability/vehicle info plus the vague catch-all 'remaining shipment details.' It leaves many parameters undocumented: Comment, ShipmentId, BookingDate, SaveAsDraft, GroupingType, photos/documents, and the other responsible-person fields.

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 identifies the action ('Saves the final other info step') and the resource ('the shipment wizard'), which distinguishes it from sibling wizard-step tools like booking_dates, material, timeslots, and unloadings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the smart-shipment variant, leaving some ambiguity at the sibling level.

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 phrasing 'final step' and 'finalizing the shipment' implies it should be used last in the wizard flow, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from the smart-shipment other-info tool. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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