close_waybill_vd

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'close/complete' aligns well. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations (e.g., irreversibility, authorization needs). Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose quickly but could be slightly more structured to improve readability.

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?

The description is minimal for a destructive action with two required parameters. It lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., waybill state), what happens on close, or return values. Given the absence of output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description merely restates the delivery date parameter without adding new semantics or clarifying format/consequences. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('close/complete') and the resource ('waybill'), and specifies the required delivery date. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'close_waybill' (likely without delivery date) by explicitly including 'with a specific delivery date'.

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 implies usage when a delivery date is available but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'close_waybill' or 'confirm_waybill'. No exclusion criteria or alternative guidance is provided.

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