Delivery: upload tariff [sandbox]

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

Description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true for create/replace) and adds limits (400MB body, 1M directions) and return status (200). While it adds value beyond annotations, it does not detail error scenarios or side effects, keeping it slightly below maximum transparency.

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 concise with three sentences, each delivering important information (purpose, limits, audience, version preference, related tools). No redundant or wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, limits, audience, and relationships with other tools. Missing return value details (only status 200) and error handling, but given the complexity and full schema documentation, it is nearly complete.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add significant new meaning to individual parameters beyond listing limits and return status, which are not parameter-specific. Baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Creates or replaces a tariff') and the resource ('tariff'). It distinguishes from v1 endpoints by explicitly preferring v2 and mentions related tools, making the purpose specific and differentiated from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'For delivery-service PARTNERS only', 'Prefer this v2 over any v1 tariff endpoint', and recommends pairing with specific tools to complete the tariff setup. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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