push_shipment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so very well. It discloses that the operation is synchronous, idempotent, fails closed on invalid FFL or unpaid orders, and is independent of Dispose. This is rich, decision-relevant behavior beyond what the schema shows.

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 sentences carry the core action, scope, behavioral guarantees, failure conditions, and the key confirm flag. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers action, target system, source state, idempotency, failure modes, and disposition independence. Minor gaps remain around the exact semantic of sales_invoice and the behavior when confirm is false.

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. It adds meaning for confirm by saying 'confirm=true', and implies sales_invoice identifies the submitted order. However, it never explains the format or meaning of sales_invoice, nor exactly what happens when confirm is false. Partial compensation only.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Push a submitted order to ShipStation.' It further anchors the tool as the Pending Order 'Ship' action, which clearly separates it from related lifecycle tools like dispose_order, dispose_web_order, and push_consignment_shipment.

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 gives clear context: only submitted/pending orders should be pushed, and invalid FFL or unpaid orders will fail closed. It also notes independence from the Dispose step. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use X instead,' so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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