mealie_api_operation_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only handles non-sensitive JSON operations, that mutations need explicit confirmation via the confirmed_by_user parameter, and that mutations are restricted by a scope environment variable. It does not mention return format or error handling, but for a generic low-level operation request tool this covers the critical behavioral aspects.

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, each carrying distinct value: the core purpose, the prerequisite discovery step, and the safety/scope constraints. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundancy 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?

The description adequately covers the tool's generic purpose and safety constraints, but with five parameters and no output schema, it leaves gaps around parameter syntax and expected return values. For a low-level generic tool, the key usage context is present, but the lack of parameter semantics keeps it from being fully 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%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the five parameters (operation_id, body, path_params, query_params, confirmed_by_user). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, especially the meaning and interaction of confirmed_by_user and the params objects.

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's function: executing a non-sensitive JSON Mealie operation by OpenAPI operation ID. It uses a specific verb ('Execute') and identifies the resource ('Mealie operation'), while explicitly distinguishing this from multipart/binary operations that require a dedicated tool.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use mealie_api_operations first' to discover operation IDs. It also notes that mutations require explicit confirmation and are restricted by MEALIE_MCP_MUTATION_SCOPE, and that multipart/binary operations are out of scope. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context relative to siblings.

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