cdek_update_intake

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it changes status via PATCH. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, error conditions, or side effects beyond the basic update.

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 short and to the point, but the structure could be improved by separating the English and Russian parts or adding a more formal structure. It is adequately concise.

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 is a mutation (PATCH) and has an output schema, the description does not contextually explain how this updates differ from similar operations, error handling, or what happens to related entities. It lacks completeness for practical use.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's 'Args' section adds minimal value by repeating parameter names and providing one-line explanations. It lacks details like possible status_code values or constraints.

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 the tool changes the status of a courier call request (intake) to 'Needs processing' with additional statuses, specifying the HTTP method and endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cdek_create_intake or cdek_delete_intake.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new intake or deleting one). No context about prerequisites or typical scenarios is given.

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