boond_deliveries_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens after calling. The action 'send' implies mutation but nothing is detailed.

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 one sentence and front-loaded with the verb, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful—it provides no detail beyond the bare action. It is not appropriately sized because it omits essential context for a mutation operation.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should still clarify the nature of the notification and the effect of the action. It does not explain what happens when 'send' is invoked, leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome and required conditions. This is incomplete.

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% (the single parameter 'id' is described as 'Delivery ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, but it also does not contradict it. A 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 ('Send') and a resource ('delivery notification'), distinguishing it from search/get/create/update operations. However, it is vague about what 'send' entails—whether it sends the delivery itself or a notification about it, and to whom. This ambiguity lowers it from a 4.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or comparison with other send-like tools such as boond_quotations_send. The description is silent on context entirely.

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