reassign_deliveries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the operation mutates assignments and that unassigned deliveries are listed, but it does not explain whether existing route assignments are overwritten, whether the change persists immediately, or what side effects occur on current plans. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 tight sentence with the action verb front-loaded and the output behavior separated by a semicolon. There is no filler or repetition; every word adds information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both invocation context and return behavior. It only partially explains results by saying what did not fit, but it does not describe the successful reassignment output, nor does it clarify how this relates to the sibling route-planning and insertion tools. The agent is left uncertain about side effects and next steps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps delivery_ids to 'the given deliveries' and date to 'for a date,' and adds context about 'active vehicles.' However, it does not explain the expected date format, what kind of delivery IDs are expected, or how active vehicles are chosen.

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 uses a specific mutating verb ('Redistribute') and names the resource ('the given deliveries') and scope ('among active vehicles for a date'). It also hints at a distinctive partial-failure output ('lists what did not fit'), which separates it from plain listing tools. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like plan_routes or commit_insertion, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as plan_routes, evaluate_insertion, or commit_insertion. It neither states prerequisites (e.g., needing active vehicles or pre-existing deliveries) nor says when not to use it. Any usage context is only implied by the word 'redistribute.'

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