CookUnity MCP

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, non-readonly operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('Confirmation with updated quantity') and error handling ('Meal not in cart: API returns error'), which are not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly verbose; for example, repeating parameter details already in the schema adds minor redundancy. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (destructive mutation with 3 parameters), annotations cover safety aspects, and schema covers parameters fully. The description adds return and error details, but lacks output schema. It's mostly complete, though could benefit from more behavioral context like idempotency implications or side effects.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats parameter names and basic semantics but doesn't provide additional context like why 'date' must be a Monday or how 'inventory_id' is obtained. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific action ('Remove a meal from the cart') with the resource ('for a specific delivery date'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cookunity_clear_cart' (which removes all items) and 'cookunity_add_to_cart' (which adds items). The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Remove a meal from the cart for a specific delivery date'), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'cookunity_clear_cart' for removing all items at once. The context is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusions.

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