firestarter_save_address

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which already signal this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the default label behavior when omitted, the is_default flag's effect on future orders, and that it returns the saved address id. It also clarifies the country inference behavior in the schema, which is a behavioral trait. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage context, parameter guidance, and return value in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The length is appropriate for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 2 required), the description covers the essential usage context, return value, and key parameter behaviors. The schema covers all parameter details. The description could be more complete by mentioning potential error cases or prerequisites (e.g., whether the buyer must exist), but these are minor gaps. The output schema is absent, but the description states the return value (saved address id), which is sufficient.

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 documents all 10 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the label default behavior and the is_default flag's effect, which are not fully captured in the schema. It also reinforces the country inference behavior. However, it doesn't add much beyond what the schema already provides for most parameters, so a 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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 verb ('Save'), the resource ('a delivery address to the buyer's address book'), and the purpose ('for reuse on future orders'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like firestarter_save_ship_from (which saves a ship-from location) and firestarter_addresses (which likely lists addresses). The context of when to use it (after a purchase or explicit request) further clarifies its purpose.

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 usage context: 'Use this after a purchase when the buyer gave a new address, or when they explicitly ask to save an address.' It also explains the optional label and is_default parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., firestarter_addresses for viewing addresses), which would strengthen the guidance.

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