clm_shipment_command_save_shipment_wizard_unloadings

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: edits to already-submitted shipments are stored as a pending draft rather than directly applied, while in-creation shipments are updated immediately. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that helps an agent reason about consequences.

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 dense sentence but is efficiently front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by the two behavioral modes. There is no filler or repetition. It could be split into shorter sentences for readability, but it earns its length.

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 clearly explains the tool's role and key behavioral distinction, and an output schema exists to describe returns. However, with 0% schema coverage, the omission of ShipmentId and BookingDate semantics leaves the calling contract incomplete. An agent would likely need additional inference to know how to populate those parameters 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 for undocumented parameters. It explains what the Vehicle object conceptually contains (name, type, ID, key), but it does not mention ShipmentId or BookingDate at all. With three meaningful parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap for correct 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Saves the unloading/vehicle step of the shipment wizard.' It further clarifies exactly which data is affected (vehicle name, type, ID, key) and distinguishes the two shipment states. This clearly separates it from sibling wizard-step tools like save_shipment_wizard_material or save_shipment_wizard_timeslots.

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: use it when saving the unloading/vehicle step, whether for an in-progress shipment or an already-submitted shipment being edited. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select this tool over other wizard steps.

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