mealie_update_mealplan

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 mentions 'full-model PUT endpoint,' which hints at full replacement semantics, but does not explain the implications (e.g., whether missing fields are reset, or that the entire object is sent). It also omits any side effects, permission requirements, or the purpose of the confirmed_by_user parameter.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action and key technical detail (PUT endpoint). It avoids verbosity, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 tool has a nested 'updates' object and a confirmation parameter, but the description gives no guidance on constructing the updates payload, the role of confirmed_by_user, or the behavior of the PUT operation. Given the absence of annotations and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters. The 'updates' object is ambiguous without guidance on whether it is partial or full-model, and 'confirmed_by_user' is unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the action ('Update a mealplan entry') and the resource ('mealplan entry'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mealie_create_mealplan and mealie_delete_mealplan. Mentioning Mealie v3's full-model PUT endpoint adds specificity that separates it from generic API request tools.

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 for modifying existing mealplan entries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like the generic mealie_api_request tools. It does hint that a full-model PUT is required, which provides some usage context, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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