Add or update a tip after Grubhub delivery using the order ID and tip amount in dollars.
Add or update the tip after delivery.
Args: order_id: The order ID tip_amount: Tip amount in dollars
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | ||
| tip_amount | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. 'Add or update' hints at upsert semantics, but it says nothing about permissions, whether an existing tip is replaced or summed, or any confirmation/reversibility behavior. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 opening sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the trailing Args block mostly repeats the schema's property titles, so part of the text does not earn its place. Size is acceptable but has redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists so return values are covered, but for a post-delivery mutation with no annotations the description omits the behavioral detail an agent needs (permissions, replacement semantics, effect on an already-tipped order). Given the complexity this is under-specified.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does document them, and 'in dollars' usefully clarifies the unit that the bare number type omits, but 'The order ID' merely restates the parameter name and adds no format or sourcing detail.
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?
States a specific verb ('Add or update') and resource ('the tip') with a temporal qualifier ('after delivery') that implicitly separates it from the sibling set_tip. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name set_tip directly to disambiguate the pre- vs post-delivery choice.
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?
'after delivery' is the only usage cue; it implies when to use this rather than set_tip but never states an explicit alternative or exclusion. An agent can infer the context but must reason about the sibling relationship itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.