update_order_delivery

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it's a WRITE operation, changes take immediate effect, may trigger automatic customer notifications, and is irreversible but can be overwritten. It also details the API endpoint and return structure.

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 well-structured with headers for purpose, usage, API, return structure, and side effects. It is concise (approx. 100 words) and front-loaded with [WRITE] tag for quick identification. Every section adds meaningful information.

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 (nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return structure (dict with success, resource_id, message) and side effects, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of fields (tracking_number, carrier, status) and explaining the purpose of delivery_data as logistics info, which helps agents understand what to populate.

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 explicitly states it updates order delivery logistics info (tracking number, carrier, status). It uses a clear verb '更新' and resource '訂單配送資訊'. The context of integrating third-party logistics systems distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_order or update_order_status.

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 a use case: '適合整合第三方物流系統後回寫配送狀態' (suitable for writing back delivery status after integrating third-party logistics). While it doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare with alternatives like execute_order_shipment, the usage context is clear.

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