clm_shipment_command_send_open_shipment_mail

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

Annotations already mark a non-idempotent, destructive side effect; the description adds context by stating the work is queued as a background job, targets the recipient, sends the email in every supported language, and depends on the shipment being found. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. It is slightly redundant ('notify...that a shipment has been requested' and 'sending the shipment requested email') and packs in the multi-language detail, but remains compact.

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 one-parameter command with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the key operational facts: asynchronous execution, recipient, email type, language scope, and the 'shipment found' trigger. The missing param semantics is already penalized separately; overall the context is serviceable.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never names ShipmentId or explains the null default. The only implicit signal is that 'the shipment' refers to the parameter, so an agent gets little help beyond the parameter name.

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 states a specific action ('queues a background job to notify'), a clear resource (the shipment's recipient, the shipment requested), and the concrete email behavior. It is easy to distinguish from sibling commands such as clm_site_equipment_command_send_open_equipment_booking_mail because the resource and email type are explicit.

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 condition for use is explicit: the tool is for notifying a shipment recipient that a shipment has been requested, and it waits for the shipment to be found. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended context is clear.

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