ship_consignment_out

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses mutation, validation-before-mutation, idempotence on re-run, server-side blocking on invalid FFL, and the need for confirmation. This exceeds what the input schema alone reveals.

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 dense yet compact: purpose, side effects, validation, idempotence, blocking behavior, verification instruction, and confirmation flag are all packed into a few purposeful 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 mutating operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what will happen, required preconditions, idempotence, and blocking behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to use without guessing critical semantics.

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 for parameter documentation. It supplies 'confirm=true' but does not explain confirm's effect or what happens when false, and it never explicitly describes the format/meaning of the required consignment_out parameter beyond the resource name.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair—'Dispose (ship) every Draft line of a Consignment Out'—and details the concrete effects: books FFL transfer, moves stock, pushes FastBound. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like push_consignment_shipment or mark_consignment_shipped.

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 gives a clear precondition ('VERIFY the dealer + serials first') and an explicit invocation requirement ('confirm=true'). It does not name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'Draft line' scoping and idempotence note make the intended context reasonably clear.

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