update_delivery_customization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update' without explaining side effects, whether it performs a partial or full replacement, permission requirements, idempotency, or the response format. The lack of any behavioral context beyond the verb leaves significant uncertainty for a mutation 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, direct sentence with no redundant words or fluff. It front-loads the core purpose immediately. While brief, it avoids the tautology seen in under-specified descriptions and earns its place as a concise statement of the tool's function.

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 tool is a simple CRUD update with two parameters, and no output schema. The description covers the basic action but omits details about the update semantics (e.g., whether it replaces all metafields or only those provided), any prerequisites, and the return value. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent to fully predict behavior.

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 input schema documents both parameters (id and metafields) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how the metafields are applied or the format expected. Since the schema already provides the baseline, a 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 ('Update') and the target resource ('an existing delivery customization rule'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_delivery_customization, delete_delivery_customization, and get_delivery_customizations by indicating a mutation on an existing entity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating a new customization or deleting one. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The only implied usage is that you update when the rule already exists, which is minimally conveyed by the verb 'update'.

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