Deliver an order (provider)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: an optional on-chain write signed locally, relayed by Agoreum, no funds moved, and a result flag onchain_delivery. It omits idempotency, required order state, failure modes, and permission requirements for a mutation tool, so it is informative but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the on-chain caveat and result field following in logical order. The parenthetical 'signed here, relayed by Agoreum, no money moves' is dense but earns its place by resolving a key safety question.

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 state-mutating, three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the conditional side effect but leaves out order-state prerequisites, idempotency behavior, and error cases. Mentioning the onchain_delivery result field partly offsets the missing output schema, but not fully.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It labels note as optional and output as structured, and implies order_id, but never says what note is shown to whom or what the structured output is for (e.g., proof-of-delivery payload), leaving the nested object unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('mark an order delivered') plus the actor ('Provider side'), which tells an agent exactly what the call does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling agoreum_record_delivery, leaving an agent to guess which delivery tool to pick.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Provider side' and the conditional on-chain clause, giving some sense of who calls this and when. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over agoreum_record_delivery or how it relates to agoreum_settle_order, and no stated preconditions on order state.

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