Delivery: delivery-term zones [sandbox]

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it creates an async task (not immediate), returns a taskID, and requires checking status via delivery_get_task. It also flags the constraint on matching zone IDs. Annotations provide only openWorldHint=true, but the description compensates with these operational details. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and result, followed by the critical constraint and audience. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 async nature, the description covers what the task does, what it returns (taskID), and how to follow up. It includes the key constraint and target audience. The param descriptions are adequate. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the shape of the task response or error handling, but that's partly covered by referencing delivery_get_task.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: for 'zones', it specifies the required fields (deliveryProviderZoneId, name, minTerm/maxTerm) and the unit (business days). For 'dryRun' and 'idempotencyKey', it adds version info and default behavior. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 (creates a task to update), the resource (delivery-term zones in a tariff), and the asynchronous nature (returns taskID, status via delivery_get_task). It also specifies the target audience (delivery-service partners) and context (sandbox). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delivery_add_tariff_sandbox_v2 or delivery_get_task.

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 provides an important constraint: 'the list of new terms must fully match the tariff's deliveryProviderZoneId values.' It also states the tool is for delivery-service partners only. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update zones vs. add a new tariff), nor does it mention when not to use it.

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