delivery_notes_issue

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It effectively states the key consequence: 'Once issued, the delivery note becomes read-only' — a critical side effect. It also describes the state transition from draft to issued. This goes beyond the bare minimum by warning the agent about the permanent read-only consequence, which is significant behavioral information for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action and trigger condition, then reveal the key consequence. Zero wasted words, each sentence carries essential information. Well structured with the purpose first and side effect second.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential elements: the action, the trigger condition, the state transition, and the read-only side effect. The 2-parameter schema with 100% coverage means parameter documentation is already handled. The description is complete for the complexity level of this tool; it could theoretically mention prerequisites or reversibility, but the 'read-only once issued' note implicitly covers irreversibility.

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% — both uuid and companyId have descriptions in the schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, mentioning nothing about the companyId override behavior. The uuid parameter is adequately documented in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 clearly states the action ('Mark a delivery note as issued'), the trigger condition ('when the physical delivery of goods or completion of services occurs'), and the state transition ('Transitions status from draft to issued'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delivery_notes_create, delivery_notes_update, delivery_notes_cancel, and delivery_notes_storno by focusing on the specific issue action.

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 clear context for when to use it (when physical delivery occurs), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. It does not explain the relationship to delivery_notes_storno or delivery_notes_cancel, which represent alternative lifecycle states. The trigger condition is useful context but exclusions are absent.

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