Create or edit a delivery address

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

Beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false, the description discloses it is mutating, requires a one-time token, and persists the address to the account's address book. It also clarifies edit-specific requirements. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then usage, then mutation side effects. Every sentence provides necessary information, making it well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

While the tool has an output schema and annotations cover safety, the description omits how the token and address fields should be passed given the empty input schema. The mention of 'typed fields' is vague, leaving an agent without enough details to construct a valid call. This incompleteness is notable for a mutating tool.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'typed fields' and 'kind=edit' but does not specify actual parameter names or types; however, since there are no schema parameters, there is nothing more to enrich. The references to token and address_id are additional, albeit not tied to formal 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 tool creates or edits a delivery address on the Alza account, using a specific verb and resource. It also notes the distinction between create and edit via the server-provided action, which differentiates it from sibling tools like address_search and address_delete.

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?

Gives explicit conditions: 'Use when the user wants to add a new shipping address or fix an existing one.' It also specifies prerequisites (token from prepare_mutation, address_id for edits) but does not mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the full 5.

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