set_delivery_slot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Select a delivery slot' and does not state whether this mutates the current order/cart, replaces an existing slot selection, requires authentication/2FA, or has other side effects. This is a meaningful gap for a setter 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 sentence with no filler: it states the action, the input, and the relevant sibling reference. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

With one parameter and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. But as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks context about side effects and what the selected slot applies to (e.g., current cart/order), leaving the agent to infer the workflow from siblings.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does identify slot_id as the delivery-slot identifier and directs the agent to get_delivery_slots for valid values. However, it offers no format, constraints, or behavior if the slot is invalid or expired, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('delivery slot'), and identifies the exact input needed (slot_id). It also points to the sibling get_delivery_slots, distinguishing this mutation/set operation from its lookup counterpart.

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 parenthetical 'see get_delivery_slots' explicitly directs the agent to the sibling tool that supplies the slot_id, providing clear prerequisite context. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases, but no other sibling directly competes with this setter, so the guidance is adequate.

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