Доставка: запрет приёма [sandbox]

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only or destructive, but the description does not explain the effect of prohibiting acceptance, e.g., whether it is reversible, permissions needed, or side effects. The openWorldHint suggests side effects, but no details are given.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure and front-loading of critical details. It is not verbose, but could be improved by adding context.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the result or effect of the action. It does not specify what happens after prohibition, leaving the agent without complete context for this sandbox tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema; orderId references an external document, dryRun and idempotencyKey are self-explanatory in 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 the action ('prohibition of receiving a parcel') and the resource ('from the sender'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delivery_sandbox_cancel_parcel' implicitly, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context on prerequisites or post-conditions. The one-line description provides no usage direction.

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