mark_consignment_shipped

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses the key effects: it does not push to ShipStation, it clears the Ship step, and it can hand-record label data so the dealer portal displays it. It does not cover reversibility or downstream side effects, but the essential mutation behavior is clearly communicated.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the action and packs the necessary conditions, sibling reference, parameter guidance, and confirmation requirement. Every element earns its place; there is no repetition of schema fields or 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 mutable 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: when to use it, what it does, what the optional parameters mean, and the required confirmation flag. Minor gaps such as return behavior and reversibility remain, but they are not necessary for a correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: tracking_number/carrier are explained as hand-recorded label data, and confirm is specified as needing to be true. consignment_out is not named explicitly, but the description identifies the resource as the disposed consignment being acted on.

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 action ('Clear') and target ('a DISPOSED consignment's Ship step') and immediately distinguishes this from mark_shipped_manually as the consignment twin. The parenthetical conditions make the exact scope unmistakable, so an agent can tell it apart from the related shipment 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?

Gives explicit situations where this tool is appropriate: label bought elsewhere, integration off, or dealer FFL expired after dispose. It also clarifies that it is the manual/consignment path vs. a ShipStation push and names mark_shipped_manually as the sibling equivalent, giving the agent a concrete alternative.

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