Update an existing meal recipe by its ID, modifying fields like summary, description, or meal category to keep meal plans current.
Update a meal recipe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| meal_category_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / meal_category_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / meal_category_id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, which the description's 'Update' already implies. The description discloses nothing about partial versus full replacement behavior, required fields, side effects, or error conditions, so it adds little beyond the structured 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 short and contains no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It mostly restates the tool name and omits necessary usage, parameter, and behavior information, so the single sentence does not earn its place.
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?
With five parameters, one required, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this minimal description is far too incomplete for safe or correct invocation. It does not even mention that an id is required or whether optional fields overwrite existing values, leaving the agent with only the raw schema to rely on.
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 mentions none of the five parameters (id, frameId, summary, description, meal_category_id). The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the raw property names in the 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 uses a specific verb, 'Update', and identifies the resource as 'a meal recipe', which is more informative than just repeating the tool name. It is clear that this tool performs updates on recipes, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like skylight_update_meal or skylight_create_recipe.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as skylight_create_recipe, skylight_delete_recipe, or skylight_update_meal. No conditions, prerequisites, or contextual cues are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.