delivery_notes_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating that the record becomes read-only after issuing — a consequence an agent can't derive from the annotations. It never says what the call returns or whether the lock can be undone.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the state-transition and read-only consequences. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the trigger, the state transition and the post-condition. The only real gap is the return payload and the behavior on notes that are not in draft status.

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 100% and both parameters (uuid, companyId) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional meaning about the UUID format, the company override behavior, or what happens if the note is already issued.

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?

Names a specific verb (mark as issued) and resource (delivery note), and pins down the exact state transition (draft -> issued), which implicitly separates it from delivery_notes_cancel, delivery_notes_storno and delivery_notes_convert. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering condition: use it when the physical delivery of goods occurs or services are completed. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to the alternative tools for correcting or reversing an issued note, which leaves the negative space unstated.

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