Nordstrom MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the authentication requirement, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe what happens after removal (e.g., whether the bag is updated immediately, if confirmation is returned, or if there are rate limits). The description adds some behavioral insight but leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second adds essential context (authentication). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic action and authentication need, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what is returned, error conditions) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data. It meets minimum viability but could be more complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the item_id parameter fully. The description adds marginal value by referencing 'get_bag results' to clarify the parameter's source, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. With 0 parameters beyond the documented one, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove an item'), target resource ('from the Nordstrom shopping bag'), and mechanism ('by item ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_to_bag or get_bag. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 mentioning 'Requires authentication' and referencing 'get_bag results' for the item_id parameter, suggesting it should be used after retrieving bag contents. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to remove versus add items) or provide clear exclusion criteria.

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