Delivery: push announcement tracking event [sandbox]

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

Discloses important behavioral traits: does not modify existing history, not idempotent (re-sending logs duplicate), returns empty 200, and notes the event progression order. Annotations confirm destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds context beyond these.

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 detailed but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and well-structured. Could be slightly trimmed, but efficient overall.

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 no output schema, the description covers return value (empty 200). It explains sandbox nature, event progression, non-idempotence, and partner restriction. Fairly complete for a sandbox tracking 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by listing the event progression order and mentioning dryRun and idempotencyKey features, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 the verb 'appends' and the resource 'tracking event for an announcement', with the context 'sandbox'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'delivery_tracking' which reports parcel-level status events.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: to simulate announcement progression (ACCEPTANCE_DONE → RECEIVED → DELIVERED, or CANCELLED). Also notes it is for delivery-service PARTNERS only and distinguishes from the parcel-level analogue. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient context.

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