Delivery: change parcel [sandbox v1]

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. Description goes beyond by explaining that the tool queues the request (async behavior) and requires polling, and that it mutates data. This adds useful context not covered by 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 concise and front-loaded, covering version, sandbox flag, purpose, async nature, sibling alternative, and audience in two sentences with no fluff.

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?

Tool has 6 parameters, 2 required, nested objects, no output schema. Description covers the core functionality, async behavior, and alternative tool. It doesn't explain all parameters (e.g., dryRun, options, idempotencyKey) but those are well-documented in the schema. Could mention the dryRun preview behavior, but overall adequate.

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 3. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'receiver's name/phone' for the application parameter) but mostly restates what is already in the schema. No additional semantic depth 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 tool creates a request to change one test parcel's data, listing the specific change types. It distinguishes from sibling 'delivery_change_parcels' for bulk changes. The verb, resource, and scope are specific and unambiguous.

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 states that the call only queues the request and that polling via 'delivery_v1_get_change_parcel_info' is needed for the outcome. Clearly indicates when not to use (for bulk changes, use the sibling tool) and restricts to sandbox and delivery-service partners.

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