update_consignment_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses write scope ('Writes ONLY this shipment's line snapshot'), downstream effects (settlement and dealer portal follow automatically), atomic validation, and server rejection gates. This is far beyond typical mutation-tool descriptions.

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 but every sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter format, scope, server gates, and confirmation. The PR reference is minor noise, but the overall structure is front-loaded and efficient for the complexity involved.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is notably complete. It covers input semantics, source of line names, server-side preconditions, batch atomicity, and downstream side effects. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 description provides detailed semantics for the nested prices object, including the tri-state msrp behavior, cost constraint, and confirm=true requirement. The consignment_out parameter is not explicitly described, but its meaning is reasonably inferable from context; this is a minor gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('per-consignment price snapshot on At Dealer lines'), and connects it to the queue's 'Edit prices' dialog. It also explicitly excludes Serial No / Item masters, which distinguishes it from the many consignment-related sibling 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?

The description gives clear operational conditions: the line must be At Dealer with no booked settlement invoice, line names come from consignment_queue, and the batch is validated as a whole. It stops short of naming alternative tools explicitly, but the when/where/conditions are clearly implied.

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