CookUnity MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the prerequisite of calling another tool first, describes error handling behaviors (returns available dates for invalid dates, returns API error for unskipped weeks), and mentions the confirmation message return. Annotations cover read/write status, idempotency, and open-world nature, but the description provides practical implementation details.

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 perfectly structured: the core purpose is stated first, followed by critical usage instructions, then parameter semantics, return value, and error handling. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero redundancy, and information is logically organized for quick comprehension.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with comprehensive annotations but no output schema, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, explicit usage guidelines, parameter constraints, return information, and error behaviors. It addresses all necessary aspects for safe and effective tool invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by emphasizing that the date 'must match an actual delivery date from cookunity_list_deliveries' and warning against manual calculation, which provides crucial semantic guidance beyond the schema's format specification and default value note.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Unskip' and the resource 'delivery week', making the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cookunity_skip_delivery' by specifying the opposite action, and from 'cookunity_list_deliveries' by focusing on modification rather than listing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Always call cookunity_list_deliveries first to get valid delivery dates — do NOT guess or calculate dates manually.' It also implicitly distinguishes from 'cookunity_skip_delivery' by handling the reverse operation, and from other cart/order tools by focusing on delivery scheduling.

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