Etsy MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool can 'create or delete' but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether operations are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to associated data. For a mutation tool with dual operations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps for the agent.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. There's zero wasted language, and it's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this compact formulation.

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 dual-operation mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. While concise, it fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for safe and effective tool invocation given the complexity.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'shipping_profile_destination_id' is only needed for delete, or that create requires cost/country fields). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('create or delete') and resource ('shipping destinations on a profile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_shipping_profile' or 'update_shipping_profile', but the focus on destinations rather than profiles themselves provides some implicit distinction.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing shipping profile), nor does it clarify when to choose 'create_shipping_profile' versus adding destinations to an existing profile. The agent must infer usage from parameter requirements alone.

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