change_delivery_note_status

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

While annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, the description does not add behavioral context beyond that. It fails to disclose potential side effects (e.g., triggering workflows, sending notifications, or affecting document availability) that are not captured in the input schema. The status parameter includes a 'deleted' option with the note 'but still visible', which hints at behavior, but this is in the schema, not the tool description.

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 sentence of 4 words, which is highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core function, though it could arguably be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 simple mutation tool with 3 parameters well-documented in the schema and annotations present, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what happens after status change (e.g., does it trigger any automated processes) or how it relates to other delivery note operations, which would be valuable for an AI agent.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description, so the tool description adds no additional meaning. Baseline is 3; the description does not improve or detract from parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Changes status') and the resource ('specified delivery note'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'delivery note' as the target resource, so the agent can easily differentiate from other change_*_status 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_delivery_note, which might also allow status changes, or sibling tools for other document types. There is no explicit context for when this tool is appropriate or when it is not, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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