Create iFood address

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

The description adds some behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the endpoint path, a 401 JSON no-JWT auth failure mode, and the fact that PUT/DELETE by :id return 404. It does not describe success behavior, response shape, or the side effects implied by destructiveHint=true, and the required explicit_user_intent is already documented in the schema. The mention of 'create' is not a direct contradiction of destructiveHint, though that annotation is surprising for a creation endpoint.

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 short and front-loads the endpoint, with no filler. However, it is a set of cryptic fragments ('401 JSON no-jwt', 'PUT/DELETE :id 404') rather than clear structured prose, and repeating explicit_user_intent wastes one of its few clauses without adding new information.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, low schema coverage, and destructiveHint=true, this description is not complete enough. It leaves out what the required coordinates mean, what a successful creation returns, and what effects or errors beyond 401/404 an agent should expect. The explicit-consent rule is helpful but insufficient.

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 only 11%, so the description should compensate by explaining latitude/longitude or the other address fields, but it does not. The only parameter-related statement repeats the explicit_user_intent schema description and adds no new meaning. Latitude and longitude are required yet entirely unexplained.

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 identifies a specific HTTP POST to /v1/customers/me/addresses, which clearly signals creating an address for the authenticated customer. Combined with the title, it distinguishes this write operation from read-only siblings like ifood_list_addresses. It is not phrased as a plain verb sentence, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explicitly states that explicit_user_intent is required before calling, which is a meaningful usage condition for a consent-sensitive write. However, it gives no guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to call it, and it does not explain the relationship to ifood_list_addresses.

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