create_consignment_out

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses concrete state effects: Draft creation, guns held, Woo delisted, queue-based disposal, best-effort ShipStation push, degraded=1 fallback on gate failure, and consequential confirmation. This is strong, specific behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is compact and information-dense: purpose, payload schema, mode behavior, degraded path, related tools, and confirmation requirement are all packed into three sentences with no filler.

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 complex tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers most of what an agent needs: payload structure, options, side effects, failure behavior, and related lookup tools. It lacks the response shape and explicit behavior when confirm is false, but the overall picture is strong.

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 only provides a generic payload object with additionalProperties, so the description is the only real documentation. It enumerates payload fields, optional markers, line-item subfields, and the meaning of dispose_now=0 vs 1. Some ambiguity remains about the types of dealer and company, and confirm semantics are terse.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build an outbound consignment to an FFL dealer.' It also names the payload shape and related candidate-finding tools, distinguishing it from siblings like ship_consignment_out and cancel_consignment.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: to build an outbound consignment, with two modes controlled by dispose_now. It also points to consignment_dealers / consignment_serials for candidate lookup. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like ship_consignment_out, 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.