issue_delivery

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds nothing about the actual behavior of issuing a delivery. It does not mention side effects, state changes, permissions, or return values, so the agent only has annotations to rely on.

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 a single short sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks the detail needed for a useful tool description, so while there is no fluff, the structure does not effectively communicate the tool's purpose.

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?

This is an action tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no description of what 'issuing' does or returns. The description gives almost no context about the operation's effects, prerequisites, or results, making it completely inadequate for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter (delivery_id) as 'the id of the delivery', covering 100% of the schema. The description does not add extra parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'Issue a delivery' names an action and resource but does not explain what 'issue' means in this context. It is not a tautology, but it is vague and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like create_delivery_from_order or update_delivery, leaving the agent guessing about the operation's effect.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, relationships to other delivery-related operations, or when the action should be performed, so the agent lacks explicit usage context.

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