veeqo_add_order_noteWRITE: add an internal (employee) note to an order, e.g. 'Customer asked for gift wrap'. It is visible to your Veeqo team on the order; it is not emailed to the customer. Notes cannot be deleted through the API. POST /orders/{order_id}/notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The note text. | |
| order_id | Yes | Veeqo order id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so mutation semantics are known. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: visibility scope (team-only, not customer-facing) and the fact that notes cannot be deleted through the API, which signals permanence. It does not contradict the annotations.
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?
Front-loaded with the WRITE marker, then use case, visibility, immutability and endpoint in four tight clauses 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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing context an agent needs: audience, permanence, and endpoint. No output schema exists, but a note-add returns little that must be described.
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% with only two documented parameters, so the schema carries the semantics (including the 1-2000 maxLength constraint). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Opens with a specific verb+resource and an explicit 'WRITE:' prefix, immediately distinguishing it from the read-only get_/list_ siblings. The example note content makes the operation's nature unambiguous.
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 makes the use case concrete ('internal (employee) note ... e.g. Customer asked for gift wrap') and clarifies what it is NOT for (not emailed to the customer), which is the key selection-relevant distinction. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling in this list performs a comparable action.
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.