update_ingredientsKeep your ingredient inventory current by adding or updating items by name, removing used-up ones, or replacing the entire stock.
Add/refresh items (upsert by name), remove items, or replace the whole inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| add | No | ||
| remove | No | Names to remove (used up) | |
| replace_all | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states that the tool can 'replace the whole inventory', which implies a destructive operation, yet the annotations declare destructiveHint as false. This is a direct contradiction between the described behavior and the annotated metadata.
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, concise sentence that conveys the full range of operations without extraneous words. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool has a small parameter set and an output schema, the description covers the essential action. It is missing minor behavioral details (e.g., whether remove fails on nonexistent items) but is generally sufficient 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?
The description clarifies the semantics of all three parameters: 'add' is an upsert by name, 'remove' deletes items, and 'replace_all' resets the inventory. This compensates for the low schema description coverage, though it does not detail edge cases like missing items or empty arrays.
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 updates ingredients and specifies the operations: add/refresh (upsert by name), remove, and replace the whole inventory. This distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like get_ingredients.
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 implicitly communicates when to use the tool (whenever ingredient inventory must be modified) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_ingredients for read-only access or record_grocery_order for related but distinct actions. No clear 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.