Warteg Online MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Change' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires special permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing deliveries, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The return statement mentions 'Summary of address changes' but provides no detail on format or content.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet points effectively. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. The only minor inefficiency is the repetition of date format (YYYY-MM-DD) for multiple parameters, but this is justified for clarity.

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 this is a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context about permissions, side effects, and return format. For a tool that modifies deliveries, more information about what 'change' entails and potential impacts would be valuable.

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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all 6 parameters with meaningful context: order_id identifies the package, new_address_id specifies the destination, date/start_date/end_date define temporal scope, and order_types enumerates valid values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Change delivery address for specific deliveries.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that indicates a mutation operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'bulk_reschedule' or 'reschedule_delivery' in terms of when to change address versus reschedule.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'bulk_reschedule', 'reschedule_delivery', and 'hold_deliveries', there's no indication of when address changes are appropriate versus other delivery modifications. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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