send_waybill

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's a mutation. The description adds that it changes status to active and assigns a number, providing concrete behavioral effects beyond the annotation. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, or failure modes, but the core behavior is well described.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the purpose and effects efficiently. The parenthetical translation adds value for context. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema) and the context of many sibling tools, the description is nearly complete. It states the prerequisite ('saved waybill') and the outcome. Slightly more detail on prerequisites or what happens if the waybill is not saved would be ideal, but it is still adequate.

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 schema already provides a description for the only parameter ('Waybill ID to activate'), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description does not add new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 ('Activate a saved waybill') and the specific effects ('sets status to active and assigns a waybill number'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like save_waybill, close_waybill, and del_waybill by focusing on activation.

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 the waybill must be 'saved' before activation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., send_waybill_vd, confirm_waybill). No guidance on when not to use or what prerequisites are required beyond the waybill being saved.

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