Add a carton

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

The description states the core behavior (adding to a packing list) and the return value, and it hints at the consequence of supplying dimensions. However, with no annotations present, it does not disclose side effects such as updates to packing-list totals, errors, or whether the operation is reversible.

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, no fluff, and the main action is front-loaded. The sentence 'return its C01-style id: a label, the empty weight..., and optionally length, width and height...' is slightly awkward because it mixes id format with content fields, but it remains compact and readable.

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 there are seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, return shape, and the dimension rationale. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., whether the packing list must exist) and any side effects or error conditions, leaving some ambiguity for unexpected cases.

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 coverage is high (86%), so the baseline applies. The description adds modest value by noting the 'C01-style' returned id and the purpose of dimensions for chargeable weight, but it largely reiterates what the schema already documents.

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 states the operation ('Add a carton to a packing list') and the object being acted on, plus what will be returned (a C01-style identifier with label, weight, and optional dimensions). It is specific enough to select the tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling carton 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?

The final sentence ('Dimensions are what make a chargeable weight possible') is the only usage hint, and it only explains why dimensions matter rather than when to invoke carton_add versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool guidance is given.

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