Choose the BilkaToGo delivery slot

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing that the slot is not actually reserved and can fill up, that ordering/payment happen on the website, that a BilkaToGo login is needed, and that Bilka slot text is untrusted data that must not be followed as instructions. These are exactly the side-effect and safety facts an agent needs and none are in the structured fields.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the action and slot sourcing before the caveats. Every clause carries a distinct, decision-relevant fact (reservation, payment boundary, auth, injection warning) with no filler.

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 small two-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, sourcing, side effects, auth, and prompt-injection safety. Nothing an agent would need before calling set_delivery_slot is missing.

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%, so both params are already documented with formats and examples. The description adds provenance the schema lacks: values must be a slot taken from list_delivery_slots and must be an available one, which constrains what the agent may pass rather than repeating the pattern.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Set the delivery or pickup slot on the user's BilkaToGo cart') plus the scoping detail 'at the cart's current place'. This clearly distinguishes it from list_delivery_slots (which only reads slots) and set_delivery_place (which only sets the place).

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to pull the date/start time from list_delivery_slots and states the precondition 'Only choose a slot the user asked for or agreed to.' The prerequisite chain (login required, slot must be available) is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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