Update Delivery

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces this by stating 'PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed' and describing the return format. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and method. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential operation, usage pattern, and output options. It does not detail every field or nested object, but the schema provides enough for an agent to infer.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description compensates slightly by explaining PATCH semantics and the response_format parameter. However, it does not add meaning beyond the schema for most parameters (date, name, comments, etc.), missing an opportunity to clarify usage.

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 'Update an existing delivery in NetBox (PATCH semantics)', specifying the verb (update) and resource (delivery). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, get, list, and delete.

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 explains PATCH semantics and advises to supply only the id and fields to change, with an explicit statement that omitting a field leaves it unchanged. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create or delete tools.

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