confirm_waybill

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description need not reiterate mutation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'confirms receipt'—e.g., whether the action is irreversible or how it affects waybill state.

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, clear sentence with a Georgian translation in parentheses. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the translation may be unnecessary for some agents.

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 tool with one parameter and annotations present, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks context about the waybill lifecycle (e.g., when confirmation is appropriate) but is otherwise sufficient for basic invocation.

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% for the single parameter waybill_id. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Buyer confirms receipt of goods from a waybill'. It uses a specific verb ('confirms') and resource ('waybill'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reject_waybill' or 'close_waybill' which perform different operations.

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 for confirming receipt, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reject_waybill, close_waybill). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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