rappi_set_active_addressSet a saved Rappi address as your active delivery address. Confirm explicit user intent to update the address without placing an order.
Requires explicit_user_intent. Does not place an order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address_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.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the requirement for explicit user intent, which is already stated in the parameter schema, and clarifies that it does not place an order. However, it does not disclose the actual effect (changing the active address) or its reversibility, leaving a significant gap in behavioral understanding. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a purpose. 'Requires explicit_user_intent' and 'Does not place an order' are both relevant, but they are insufficient for a complete definition. The brevity is acceptable but not balanced with necessary content.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks a clear statement of the tool's purpose, effect, when to use it, and parameter details. An agent would have to infer almost everything from the name and title, which is unrealistic in a complex environment with similar tools.
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 coverage is only 33%, with only explicit_user_intent having a description. The description mentions this requirement but adds nothing about address_id or response_format. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the meaning and format of key parameters 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 never states the tool's actual function of setting the active address. It only mentions a usage requirement ('Requires explicit_user_intent') and a negation ('Does not place an order'). The name and title imply the purpose, but the description itself fails to clearly convey what the tool does, making it ambiguous for an agent without additional inference.
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 sibling address tools (create, update, delete, list). 'Requires explicit_user_intent' is a precondition, not a usage scenario. 'Does not place an order' distinguishes from order placement but not from other address-related actions. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.