clm_smart_shipment_command_save_smart_shipment_wizard_unloadings

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that the vehicle information is applied either directly to the shipment or to its smart-draft if the shipment already exists as a valid non-draft shipment. This conditional behavior is useful and not expressed by the idempotentHint or destructiveHint 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is stated first, and the important conditional smart-draft behavior is added in the second sentence. Every sentence 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?

The definition is complete for a wizard-step save command: it identifies the step, the key data, and the draft-vs-valid-shipment behavior. An output schema exists so return values don't need to be described. A small gap is not explaining prerequisites or how the wizard step relates to the other wizard steps, but this is not critical.

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, and it does: 'unloading vehicle details' maps to Vehicle, 'shipment' maps to ShipmentId, and 'booking date' maps to BookingDate. It doesn't explain the inner shape of the Vehicle object, but the schema itself treats it as a generic object, so this is acceptable.

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 clearly identifies the action ('saves step 3 of the Smart Shipment wizard'), the resource ('unloading vehicle details'), and the scope ('for the shipment's booking date'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the other wizard-step save tools.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when saving step 3 of the Smart Shipment wizard, specifically unloading vehicle details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as the regular (non-smart) shipment unloadings sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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