resolve_ndr_issue

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it is ambiguous whether this tool actually sends the WhatsApp message or merely generates it, and whether 'escalation/hold instructions' are actionable side effects. It does not mention reversibility, permissions, rate limits, or other consequences, leaving the agent uncertain about real-world impact.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the two key outputs, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too high-level. It omits expected return values, conditional logic, and behavioral side effects, so an agent cannot fully predict what will happen when invoking it, especially around sending messages or imposing carrier holds.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific detail. The description refers to 'customer' and 'carrier' broadly but does not explain conditional parameters (e.g., reschedule_date for reschedule_requested, corrected_address for wrong_address) that the schema implies.

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 states a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('NDR issue'), and clearly outlines the outputs ('WhatsApp re-engagement message' and 'escalation/hold instructions'). It is distinct from sibling tools like track_parcel or create_parcel, so an agent can identify its unique role without needing to open schemas.

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 phrase 'failed courier delivery attempts' gives clear context for when to use this tool, and the sibling list confirms it is the only NDR-resolution tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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