Mark sale as shipped

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: a required scope ('mark_sales_as_shipped') and a confirmation requirement, which tells the agent this mutation must be deliberate and permissioned. It does not spell out irreversibility, but the destructiveHint covers that.

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 short sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded, followed by the implementation detail and scope. Every clause carries weight and nothing is redundant.

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 the annotations already specify safety and idempotency, and the schema fully documents parameters, the description supplies the missing operational context (required scope, explicit confirmation). There is no output schema, but the description need not explain return values. It is nearly complete, though it could note any side effects or rate limits.

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 100%, so all four parameters (account, confirm, sale_id, tracking_url) are documented in the schema itself, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable when schema coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb ('mark as shipped') and resource ('sale'), and the name/title are unambiguous. It also identifies the native endpoint (PUT /sales/:id/mark_as_shipped), which distinguishes it from siblings like refund_sale or revoke_sale_access.

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 clear this is a status-changing action requiring explicit per-call confirmation ('Requires explicit per-call confirmation'), which implicitly defines when to use it (only when the user asked for exactly this action). It doesn't name alternatives (e.g., refund_sale) or exclusions, but the confirmation requirement gives solid usage context.

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