CookUnity MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. While annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, and open-world, the description provides practical constraints: the date must match actual delivery dates from list_deliveries, and it describes error handling scenarios (invalid date, past cutoff, already skipped). This gives the agent crucial operational knowledge not captured in 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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by critical usage guidance, then parameter semantics, return value, and error handling. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero redundancy. The formatting with clear sections (Args, Returns, Error Handling) enhances readability.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter semantics, return value, and error scenarios. The agent has everything needed to use this tool correctly, including integration with the cookunity_list_deliveries sibling.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it emphasizes that the date 'must match an actual delivery date from cookunity_list_deliveries' and provides error handling details for invalid dates. This goes beyond the schema's technical validation to explain the semantic requirement and consequences.

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 ('Skip a delivery week') and resource ('delivery'), distinguishing it from siblings like cookunity_unskip_delivery (reverse action) and cookunity_list_deliveries (read-only). It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 this tool: 'Always call cookunity_list_deliveries first to get valid delivery dates — do NOT guess or calculate dates manually.' It names the specific alternative tool (cookunity_list_deliveries) and clearly states when not to use this tool (without first calling that sibling).

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