ifood_set_delivery_methodChoose a delivery method for an iFood cart among DEFAULT, PRIORITY, or TAKEOUT. Use after explicit user confirmation to update the cart's delivery preference.
Gated cart write. DEFAULT / PRIORITY / TAKEOUT.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | Yes | ||
| cart_id | Yes | ||
| response_format | No | markdown | |
| explicit_user_intent | No | Must be true after the user explicitly asked for this write. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the useful 'Gated cart write' framing, but does not disclose what makes the operation destructive or what side effects changing the delivery method may have.
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 extremely concise, front-loads the core 'Gated cart write' concept, and contains no filler words. It is structured well, though it is so terse that it depends heavily on the schema for operational meaning.
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 gated, destructive write operation with four parameters and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how the gate is satisfied, what the response looks like, or what happens to the cart when the method changes, so an agent has limited ability to invoke it confidently.
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 25%, and the description does not compensate. The allowed method values are already present as an enum in the schema, and cart_id, response_format, and explicit_user_intent receive no added semantic explanation beyond the schema.
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 title plus description make it clear this sets the delivery method on an iFood cart, and the listed DEFAULT / PRIORITY / TAKEOUT values identify the target field. It is distinct in resource from ifood_set_payment_method, but the description does not explicitly differentiate it from that sibling.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus related tools like ifood_set_payment_method. 'Gated' implies some precondition, but the condition is not explained, and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.