Update a bottle's remaining amount as a percentage (0–100) to keep drink inventory accurate. Provide the bottle ID and remaining percent to reflect current stock levels.
Set remaining percentage (0–100) for each bottle represented by this row.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bottle_id | Yes | ||
| remaining_percent | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 mutating action 'Set' and the percentage range, but it does not mention validation of out-of-range values, whether existing values are overwritten, side effects, or any permission requirements.
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 a single short sentence with no filler, and the core verb and resource are front-loaded. The phrasing 'each bottle represented by this row' is somewhat awkward, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.
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 simple two-parameter update, the description covers the essential operation and the percentage range. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits context about return behavior, error handling, and how this tool fits among the bottle-management siblings, making it minimally sufficient but not 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to remaining_percent by specifying a 0–100 range, but bottle_id is only loosely implied by 'each bottle represented by this row' and not explicitly identified as the target identifier. The compensation is partial at best.
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 uses a specific verb 'Set' and names the resource 'remaining percentage' with a clear 0–100 range, making the tool's primary function obvious. However, the phrase 'each bottle represented by this row' is slightly ambiguous and does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling update_bottle.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_bottle or any other sibling. It does not mention conditions, exceptions, or alternatives, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.