Move a packing list on

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burdenley and it does disclose the key side effect: shipping records carrier/tracking/date and freezes the list, and a shipped list cannot be reopened/edited. It does not fully explain cancel behavior or force implications, but the core irreversible action is exposed.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action verb ('Move') and the state machine. Each sentence adds distinct information: transition targets, shipping side effects, and irreversibility. No filler or repetition of schema field names.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries a lot of weight. It conveys the transition model and irreversible effects, which is enough for an agent to use the tool without guessing. It could be more complete by spelling out that cancel only applies from open (non-shipped) statuses and that no backward moves are allowed.

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 already covers 86% of parameters. The description adds meaningful context by tying carrier, tracking, and date to the shipping transition and emphasizing that shipping is a terminal state, which helps an agent understand when those parameters matter. The 'note' and 'force' parameters are not addressed, but schema covers them.

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 operation ('Move a packing list ... to packed to shipped, or cancel it') and spells out the exact state transitions, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does and can tell it apart from siblings like packing_list_create or packing_list_delete.

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 makes the usage context clear: it is the tool for advancing a packing list's status or cancelling it. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools such as packing_list_create/delete, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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