CookUnity MCP

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

Annotations cover basic hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false, etc.), but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies error conditions (invalid inventory_id, past cutoff), mentions the API response format ('Confirmation with updated quantity'), and references prerequisites ('check cutoff with cookunity_list_deliveries first'). This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description does well by explaining the return value ('Confirmation with updated quantity') and error handling. It references related tools (cookunity_list_deliveries) and data sources. However, it could slightly improve by clarifying idempotency or side-effects more explicitly, given the annotations don't cover everything.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra semantics (e.g., 'default 1 (max 10)' for quantity, which is also in the schema). It provides examples that clarify usage but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 description clearly states the specific action ('Add a meal to the cart') and resource ('for a specific delivery date'), distinguishing it from siblings like cookunity_remove_from_cart (removal) and cookunity_get_cart (viewing). It precisely defines the tool's function without being tautological.

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 explicit guidance on when to use alternatives, stating 'check cutoff with cookunity_list_deliveries first' to avoid errors. It also implies usage context by referencing data sources ('from menu/search results') and error conditions, though it doesn't explicitly name all sibling alternatives.

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