Доставка: изменить посылку [sandbox v1]

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description merely says it creates a change request, which aligns but does not elaborate on potential side effects, execution duration, or that it operates only in sandbox. 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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is too sparse and misses important contextual information. Every word earns its place, but more could be said without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 6 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected return value, the lifecycle of the change request, or how to handle the 'application' and 'options' parameters. The description is inadequate for a mutation tool with complex inputs.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3, but the description does not add any parameter-level meaning. The description fails to compensate for the missing description of the 'parcelID' parameter (the only one without schema description). The description also does not clarify the values for 'type' or the structure of 'application' and 'options' beyond referencing external documentation.

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 states the tool creates a request to change test parcel data, which is clear and specific. The sandbox context is indicated by the title and description. However, the phrasing 'создание заявки на изменение' is slightly roundabout and could be more direct, like 'Submit a change request for a test parcel'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having a valid parcelID, or clarification on the 'type' parameter. The description does not differentiate this tool from related siblings like delivery_v1_cancel_parcel or delivery_v1_get_parcel_info.

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