CookUnity MCP

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

Annotations provide hints (destructive, idempotent, not read-only, open-world), but the description adds valuable context: it clarifies that this action 'removes ALL meals' (reinforcing destructive nature), mentions error handling for 'Past cutoff,' and specifies the return as a 'Confirmation message.' This enhances transparency beyond annotations 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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and Error Handling. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive action with one parameter) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and error handling, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or output specifics beyond 'Confirmation message,' which could be more detailed since there is no output schema.

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 100%, with the schema fully documenting the 'date' parameter's format and default behavior. The description adds minimal semantics by restating the format and requirement, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Clear all items from the cart') and resource ('for a specific delivery date'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'cookunity_remove_from_cart' which removes individual items. The phrase 'removes ALL meals' emphasizes the scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'for a specific delivery date' and mentioning error handling for 'Past cutoff,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cookunity_remove_from_cart' or 'cookunity_skip_delivery.' It provides clear context but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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