Pick up or hand over a physical item: documents, a device, a sample kit, a key, a check. Returns a chain-of-custody log with photos at both ends and signatures captured. Declared contents only; no cash, controlled items, weapons or hazardous materials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deadline | No | ||
| budget_cap | No | ||
| pickup_address | Yes | ||
| dropoff_address | Yes | ||
| item_declaration | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return artifact (chain-of-custody log with photos at both ends and signatures), and sets a clear eligibility boundary (declared contents only; prohibited item classes). It omits failure handling, cost/authorization expectations, and what happens if the deadline or budget cap cannot be met.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste: the action and item examples come first, the return artifact second, the eligibility restriction last. Every sentence earns its place.
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 five-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return artifact and the key eligibility restriction well. It is incomplete on the two optional parameters (deadline, budget_cap) and on operational behavior such as failure or handover verification, which an agent would need to call it confidently.
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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies 'item_declaration' as declared contents and implies pickup/dropoff meaning, but says nothing about how 'deadline' or 'budget_cap' affect behavior, nor about address formats or constraints.
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 verb+resource combination ('pick up or hand over a physical item') and gives concrete examples (documents, device, sample kit, key, check), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but the siblings are in an entirely different domain, so confusion risk is low.
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?
Usage is implied by the item examples and the prohibition list ('no cash, controlled items, weapons or hazardous materials'), which functions as a when-not condition. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no discussion of deadline or budget-cap implications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.