boond_deliveries_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description is responsible for conveying behavior, but it only restates the create operation. It says nothing about required permissions, what a successful create returns, whether duplicates are possible, or what lifecycle or status the new delivery starts in. It does not contradict the create intent, but it discloses no meaningful behavioral detail.

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 text is extremely short and contains no filler, which is generally good. However, it is under-specified to the point where it simply echoes the tool name rather than enriching the definition. It is concise but not structured as a genuinely informative description.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the absence of an output schema and annotations means the description should explain the result of the call and any operational caveats. It provides none, so an agent still lacks information about response shape, error behavior, and side effects. The schema covers argument construction, not invocation context.

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?

All four parameters in the input schema have their own descriptions: name, projectId, dueDate (ISO 8601), and description. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the schema carries the parameter documentation, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. The neutral baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description contributes nothing extra 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 states a clear action ('Create') and identifies the resource ('a new delivery'), which aligns with the tool name. It does not, however, provide delivery-specific context or distinguish this from the many sibling tools that also operate on deliveries, such as boond_deliveries_update or boond_deliveries_send.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions the search/get/update/send siblings or any condition that would select this create operation over them. An agent can only infer usage from the word 'create.'

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