ecm_perform_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that some actions may not be available via API, which is helpful, but it does not state what each action does, whether actions are destructive (e.g., shred), what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. The main action list is front-loaded, and the availability caveat is placed second. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation and warns about unavailable actions. However, it leaves out expected outcomes, error conditions, and whether operations are asynchronous or immediate, making it only partially complete for an agent deciding how to handle the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'move-to-inbox' as an example of an unavailable action, which is extra context beyond the schema's enum. However, the parameter meanings themselves (piece_id, action) are fully documented in the schema, so the description adds only marginal value.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource ('Perform an action on a mail piece') and enumerates the working actions: scan, shred, ship, archive. This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling tools (list/get/inbox content), so an agent can tell what this tool does at a glance.

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 implies usage for the listed actions but never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does provide a useful availability warning ('move-to-inbox and some other actions may not be available via API'), yet there is no direct guidance about when not to use it or which sibling might be a fallback. Context with read-only siblings implies this is the mutation tool, but that is left to inference.

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