Доставка: график зоны [sandbox]

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

The description states that reloading overwrites the old schedule, indicating destructive behavior. However, annotations set destructiveHint to false, creating a clear contradiction. No other behavioral traits (e.g., authorization requirements, rate limits) are mentioned. The contradiction severely undermines 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 a single, short sentence that conveys the core functionality. It is concise and front-loaded, though it is identical to the title. No extraneous information is present, making it efficient.

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?

The description lacks detail on side effects, response structure, and the implications of overwriting schedules. For a tool with no output schema and a partially described nested object parameter (schedules), the description does not sufficiently cover what the agent needs to know to use the 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?

All three parameters have descriptions. 'dryRun' and 'idempotencyKey' are well documented with default values and behavior explanations. The 'schedules' parameter description references an external definition, which is less helpful but still provides a path to understanding. Overall, the parameter descriptions add meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 it sets a delivery zone schedule for a specific day and that reloading overwrites the old schedule. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose, but does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond being a sandbox operation.

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 implies usage for setting schedules but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions under which it should not be used. The context is implied but not explicit.

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