_mcp_generate_delivery_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'decryption procedure' and the content of the note, giving some insight into output. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The description adds value beyond the name but lacks depth on safety or side effects.

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, concise sentence of 9 words that immediately conveys the core functionality. There is no extraneous information, and it is front-loaded with the key action and content.

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?

While the description covers the main deliverable components, it does not explain the output schema (which exists but is not shown), nor does it detail how to use the four parameters effectively. Given the complexity of a document generation tool with multiple parameters and siblings, the description is somewhat incomplete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided. The tool description vaguely references 'file list', 'SHA256', and 'decryption procedure' but does not map these to parameters like 'files', 'client_nom', or 'prestataire_nom'. It offers insufficient detail to understand parameter roles, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Render' and the resource 'delivery note', and specifies the included components: file list, SHA256 hashes, and decryption procedure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like _mcp_generate_contract or _mcp_generate_invoice which have different content.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as _mcp_encrypt_deliverable or _mcp_upload_deliverable. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or conditions that would help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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