mark_shipped_manually

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool bypasses ShipStation and enforces a safety guard, which is useful. However, the role of 'confirm=true' is ambiguous and the consequences or reversibility of clearing the queue are not stated.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action, use cases, and guard are front-loaded. The final 'confirm=true' is telegraphic but still compact and purposeful.

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?

The description captures the main scenario and an important safety precondition, which is enough to select the tool. However, it omits how sales_invoice should be supplied, what a successful call returns, and whether clearing is reversible, leaving an agent with gaps for safe 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, but it only offers the terse 'confirm=true' hint. It never explicitly explains that sales_invoice identifies the DISPOSED order to clear, leaving the core parameter semantically underdocumented.

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 ... from the Pending Order queue') and scope ('a DISPOSED order'), explicitly distinguishing itself from ShipStation-push flows. The parenthetical use cases further disambiguate this as a manual override tool.

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?

Provides concrete when-to-use scenarios: label bought elsewhere, integration off, or FFL expired after dispose. It also states a hard precondition by refusing while any firearm is undisposed, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like push_shipment or dispose_order.

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