clm_smart_shipment_command_save_shipment_wizard_booking_dates

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

The description discloses important non-obvious behavior: if no shipment exists for the ShipmentId, it creates a new UnApproved draft linked to the lean card's site; otherwise it updates the existing shipment or its smart-draft. This goes well beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations and clarifies the tool's conditional side effects.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and scope, and the second provides essential conditional behavior. Every sentence contributes operational information.

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 adequately covers the tool's central complexity: conditional creation vs update, draft status, site linkage, and smart-draft behavior. The output schema can cover return values. It falls slightly short of full completeness because some parameters are not explicitly explained and null ShipmentId behavior is not addressed, but an agent can still invoke it 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. It explains ShipmentId's conditional create-vs-update semantics and groups BookingDate, LeanCard, TimeZone, TimeZoneOffset, and WeatherSymbol fields into meaningful categories. However, IsExpressShipment and ScheduleTimeTemperature are not mentioned, and LeanCard's internal structure is left unspecified, so compensation is only partial.

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 and resource: it saves step 1 of the Smart Shipment wizard, covering booking date, lean card, and weather/timezone context. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling wizard-step tools such as 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 clearly identifies the use case as the first step of the Smart Shipment wizard and explicitly lists the fields involved. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', but the step-1 and booking-date framing gives strong contextual guidance.

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