Update delivery

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 merely states 'Update delivery method / delivery destination information' without detailing side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or how existing data is affected. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, brief noun phrase in Japanese, which is concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity is almost under-specification, and the structure lacks a full sentence to provide context. For a tool with a nested schema, more structure would be beneficial.

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?

The tool has two parameters (one nested), no output schema, and no annotations, while the description is a single phrase. Given the many similar sibling tools (e.g., rms_update_shipping, rms_update_sender), the description does not adequately contextualize usage, return values, or errors, making it incomplete for confident invocation.

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 0% and the description does not mention either 'order_number' or 'delivery'. The nested 'delivery' object allows arbitrary properties via propertyNames and additionalProperties, but the description adds no clarification, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema's minimal structure.

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 '配送方法／お届け先情報更新' translates to 'Update delivery method / delivery destination information', clearly indicating the tool updates delivery-related details. It specifies the verb 'update' and the resources (delivery method and address), but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like rms_update_shipping, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rms_update_shipping or rms_update_sender. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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