close_waybill

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description adds 'marks delivery as done,' which aligns but doesn't disclose additional behavior like irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects beyond the annotation.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence plus a parenthetical in Georgian). No wasted words, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., front-loading the key verb).

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 one-param close action with annotations, the description is adequate but omits details on return values, success/failure behavior, or state changes. Lacks completeness for a function with no output schema.

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 100% with the waybill_id parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no further meaning or format details beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the action (close/complete) and the resource (waybill) with the specific meaning 'marks delivery as done'. This distinguishes it from other waybill-related siblings like save, send, confirm, reject, etc., though explicit sibling differentiation is missing.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., close_waybill_vd, confirm_waybill). No prerequisites or context provided.

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