update_delivery_option_generator

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing delivery option generator,' which reveals the mutation but nothing about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. This is comparable to the 'update_drive' example that received a 2 for lacking such details.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it adds little beyond the tool name itself, making it slightly redundant, but it is grammatically complete and not bloated.

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 has only 2 parameters and no output schema, but the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain the effect of the update (e.g., whether metafields are merged or replaced), the return value, or any prerequisites. The description is adequate for a simple update but leaves meaningful gaps that the schema cannot fill.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions (id and metafields), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, relying entirely on the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, the description's lack of param-specific info does not lower the score below baseline.

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 'Update an existing delivery option generator' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (delivery option generator), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete siblings. It is specific and unambiguous, so it fully satisfies the 'specific verb+resource+scope' criterion.

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 create_delivery_option_generator or delete_delivery_option_generator. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The only hint is the word 'existing,' but that is implied rather than explicit.

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