update_order_delivery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that changes take effect immediately, status changes may trigger automatic notifications (e.g., shipping confirmation emails), and the operation is irreversible but can be overwritten by calling the tool again. This is comprehensive and goes well beyond the minimum.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections: purpose, usage, API call, return structure, and side effects. It is concise but information-dense, with every section providing relevant detail. The [WRITE] prefix immediately signals the operation type.

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 description compensates for the lack of an output schema by explicitly describing the return structure (dict with success, resource_id, message). It covers usage context, the underlying API endpoint, side effects, and potential notifications. This is complete for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions that already explain delivery_id and delivery_data (including an example). The tool description adds only a brief mention of fields like tracking_number, carrier, and status, which the schema already covers. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little extra 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?

The description clearly states that the tool updates delivery information for a specific order delivery record (修改指定訂單配送記錄的物流資訊). It names concrete fields (tracking number, carrier, delivery status) and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like get_order_delivery (read), execute_order_shipment (shipment execution), and update_order (general order update).

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 a clear use case: suitable for writing back delivery status after integrating a third-party logistics system (適合整合第三方物流系統後回寫配送狀態). This gives context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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