deliver

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It usefully notes the operation is free and requires the caller's claimSecret, which hints at an authorization requirement, but it says nothing about state changes, reversibility, or what happens to the job after delivery.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action, but the trailing '(free)' appears twice, which is redundant noise in an otherwise single-line description.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, this description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what delivery does to the job state or how the note parameter is used.

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 0% and three parameters (id, note, claim_secret) are entirely undocumented. The description only gesturally references the secret, and even then uses 'claimSecret' while the schema field is 'claim_secret', leaving id and note with no explanation.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("mark a claimed job as delivered") and clearly ties to the claim workflow among siblings like claim, close, and jobs. It is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not distinguish itself from the similarly-scoped 'close' sibling.

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 call this versus 'close' or other job lifecycle tools. The parenthetical about needing a claimSecret is a precondition but not a when-to-use rule, and no alternatives are named.

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