delivery_notes_update

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds a materially important behavior beyond them: line items are replaced wholesale, so any existing line omitted from the array disappears. It still omits permissions/auth requirements and whether updating re-triggers e-Transport validation. Note the mild tension: wholesale line replacement destroys existing line data even though destructiveHint=false.

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 operation plus the two constraints are front-loaded. Nothing repeated and nothing padded.

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 42-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two things the schema cannot: when the call is legal (status) and what it does to existing lines. Gaps remain around series/numbering effects on update and whether e-Transport fields must be resupplied, but these are secondary given full schema coverage.

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% across all 42 parameters, so the schema already explains uuid, the required line fields, and the e-Transport fields. The description only echoes the array-level replacement semantics that the schema's own line description states, adding no new parameter meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Update an existing delivery note" with two concrete constraints (draft/issued status, full line replacement). It does not name siblings such as delivery_notes_create or delivery_notes_cancel, relying on the name for differentiation, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 status precondition ("draft or issued status can be updated") is real usage guidance, implying issued-but-cancelled/storno notes are not updatable. However, it never names an alternative tool or says what to do instead (e.g., delivery_notes_get to read current lines before overwriting, or delivery_notes_cancel for finalized notes).

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