Update an existing ingredient's details, such as renaming it to remove '(copy)' suffixes.
Update an ingredient in the library. PUT /ingredients/{id}. Use for renaming (e.g. stripping '(copy)' suffixes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | e.g. {name: 'Vanilla Concentrate'} | |
| as_json | No | ||
| ingredient_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the mutation and offers a use example. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or a full PUT replacement, what fields are accepted beyond name, whether auth is required, what the response looks like, or any side effects.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the operation, the endpoint, and the intended use case in two sentences. There is no repetition or filler.
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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented 'as_json' boolean, and a flexible nested 'fields' object, this description is not complete enough for fully safe autonomous invocation. It gives good purpose but lacks behavioral and response details.
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 description adds meaning to the 'fields' parameter via the renaming use case and connects ingredient_id to the resource path. However, schema coverage is only 33%, and the 'as_json' parameter is completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates.
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 operation (update), the resource (an ingredient in the library), and the exact HTTP endpoint (PUT /ingredients/{id}). The phrase 'in the library' helps distinguish this from sibling tools like update_recipe_ingredient, which operate at the recipe level.
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 gives an explicit use case: renaming ingredients, such as stripping '(copy)' suffixes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the library context and concrete example provide clear practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.