Deliver an update

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that the result goes back to the buyer for another review, and that one mode carries a URL+confirmation while the other carries neither. It does not explain what the destructive/review consequence actually means operationally.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the usage condition first, which is good. But the second clause is compressed and hard to parse ('delivers a post order with ... and a link addition with neither'), forcing the reader to decode the two-mode logic, so structure costs clarity.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the conditional parameter logic and the review-loop intent. It omits any description of the return value (since there is no output schema) and the failure/validation behavior when the two-mode rules are violated, leaving some gaps for an agent operating a write tool.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description genuinely adds value by defining a conditional relationship the schema does not state: a post order takes the URL and publicationDateConfirmed, while a link addition takes neither. That mutual-exclusion logic is not encoded in the schema and meaningfully guides which parameters to send.

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 states a specific action (delivering a post order/link addition for buyer re-review) tied to the seller having changed a delivered order. It reads clearly as a submit-for-review operation, though the two-mode phrasing (post order vs link addition) is dense. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (e.g. deliver_seller_order_draft_update), so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Use this when a seller has changed a delivered order as the buyer asked' gives a clear triggering condition and the word 'delivered' implicitly excludes draft orders. However it names no alternative tool and states no when-not conditions, so an agent must infer that draft updates route elsewhere.

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