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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing partial-update semantics ('Only supplied fields change'), empty-string clearing behavior, full-replacement semantics for batchIds, the non-future constraint on shippedAt, and version uniqueness within a project. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying a distinct rule (scope, partial update, batch replacement, shippedAt/version constraints). Front-loaded with the core purpose and zero 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 mutation tool with destructiveHint and no output schema, the description covers all six parameters, clearing semantics, and key constraints, which is nearly complete. It omits anything about error/conflict behavior or what the response returns, though the latter is less critical without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: empty-string clearing, batchIds as a full replacement set, shippedAt format and the non-future constraint, and version uniqueness/non-empty rules. Some of this (clearing, replacement set) overlaps the schema descriptions, so it is a genuine but partial addition.

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 verb ('Edit') and resource ('a delivery's own record') and enumerates exactly which fields are editable (version, rationale, summary, ship date, batches). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like update_batch and assign_batch_to_delivery by scoping to the delivery's own record.

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 implies when to use it by describing what fields it edits and how partial updates behave, but it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., assign_batch_to_delivery vs. using batchIds here) or states prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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