delete_households_mealplans_by_itemRemove a single meal plan item from a household by providing its item ID. Streamline meal planning by deleting unwanted entries directly.
Delete One
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | ||
| accept-language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not disclose that this is a destructive delete, whether deletion cascades, what permissions are needed, or what the response will contain.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise effectiveness. It front-loads almost no useful information.
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?
Even though the tool has only two parameters and an output schema, the description gives an agent no basis for deciding whether this is the right delete operation or what consequences it has. It is far below a minimum viable definition for a destructive tool.
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 contains no parameter information. It does not explain what item_id means, how it relates to mealplans, or whether accept-language affects behavior.
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 'Delete One' is essentially content-free: it does not name the resource being deleted, the operation's scope, or the item identifier involved. It provides no differentiation from the dozens of sibling delete 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_households_mealplans_rules_by_item or delete_households_shopping_lists_by_item. The phrase 'Delete One' only weakly implies a single-item operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.