Delivery: upload tariff [sandbox]

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation tool. The description adds context about limits (400MB body, 1M directions) and the 200 response code. It does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing tariffs or error states, so it adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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 four sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and concisely covers key context (sandbox v2, partner only, limits, preference over v1, pairing suggestions). Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides essential context: purpose, target audience, limits, and integration hints. It lacks details on error handling or what happens when limits are exceeded, but it covers the key aspects for successful invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add new semantic detail about individual parameters beyond what is in the schema, except for an overall reference to body size and direction count. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair ('Creates or replaces a tariff') and clearly distinguishes itself as v2 over any v1 endpoint. It also mentions the target audience (delivery-service PARTNERS) and references sibling tools that complete the tariff setup, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for partners, prefer v2) and suggests pairing with delivery_update_terms and delivery_add_terminals_sandbox. However, it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, which limits clarity for an agent choosing between similar tools.

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