Pursue to a Delivery Note

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

Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and non-idempotent. The description adds that it creates a delivery note and gives the HTTP method/endpoint, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions or effects of invalid preceding voucher. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but no extra value beyond what is obvious is provided.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the endpoint mapping. Every sentence is relevant and there is no wasted text.

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 complexity (simple but with a nested body parameter), the description references API docs for full schema, which helps. However, it lacks information about return values (no output schema), prerequisites (e.g., voucher existence), or error conditions. The sibling set is large, and more differentiation would be beneficial. Overall adequate but not comprehensive.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds the endpoint mapping but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. The body parameter's note 'Same shape as lexware_create_delivery_note' is helpful but vague; it does not fully compensate since coverage is already high, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Create' and resource 'delivery note as a follow-up to a preceding quotation or order confirmation', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lexware_create_delivery_note and other pursue tools.

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 indicates when to use the tool (as a follow-up to a quotation or order confirmation) and implies not to use it for standalone delivery notes. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative lexware_create_delivery_note, though it is present in the sibling list. The endpoint mapping provides additional context.

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