clm_smart_shipment_command_save_smart_shipment_wizard_materials

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

Annotations only state idempotent and non-destructive, leaving the description to explain what happens during the save. It does that well: for new shipments it persists material lines and saves each ShipmentMaterial individually, while for existing shipments it stores on the smart-draft instead. This discloses meaningful behavioral nuance 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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the condition-dependent behavior in the second sentence. Every part earns its place.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety/idempotency, the description covers the essential behavioral split between new and existing shipments. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly routing to sibling wizard-step tools or explaining what a 'smart-draft' is, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter-semantics burden. It maps several key concepts to parameters: 'building, floor, laydown area, recipient team' and 'delivery materials'. However, it does not clarify ShipmentId, BookingDate, CommissionedId, MaterialComment, or the distinction/relationship between RecipientTeamId and RecipientTeamName, and the Materials array item shape is left vague.

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 names a specific verb ('Saves'), a specific resource ('step 4 of the Smart Shipment wizard'), and the exact content ('delivery materials and drop-off details'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling wizard-step savers by identifying the step and the data involved.

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 context: it is for the Smart Shipment wizard, step 4, and differentiates behavior between new drafts and existing shipments. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the sibling list makes the intended placement fairly inferable.

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