clm_shipment_command_upsert_adhoc_shipment

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: upsert semantics and the fact that a background command is queued to finish processing, such as thumbnail generation and notifications. This is meaningful additional transparency.

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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the core operation, the scoping to ad-hoc shipments, and the background side effects. The parenthetical examples are useful and there is no filler.

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 large parameter surface, 0% schema description coverage, and no parameter-level guidance, the description is not sufficient for confident invocation. It does not clarify what identifiers are expected or how the params object should be populated. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input structure remains under-described.

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 description provides no parameter-level meaning. The mention of a 'given ID' is confusing because the input schema does not surface an explicit shipment ID field, and the many nested optional fields remain unexplained. The description does not compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 verb and resource: 'Creates or updates an ad-hoc (walk-in, non-wizard) shipment'. It clearly explains the conditional behavior (update if the ID exists, otherwise create) and distinguishes this tool from wizard-based shipment commands in the sibling list.

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 scopes the tool to ad-hoc, walk-in, non-wizard shipments, which differentiates it from the save_shipment_wizard_* sibling commands. It gives clear context on when this tool applies, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state a when-not-to-use condition.

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