update_households_cookbooks_by_itemUpdate a household cookbook by item ID to change its name, slug, visibility, position, description, language, or query filter.
Update One
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| slug | No | ||
| public | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| position | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| accept-language | No | ||
| queryFilterString | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update One' only implies mutation and gives no information about side effects, permissions, reversibility, partial updates, or response behavior.
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 brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. 'Update One' does not earn its place because it conveys no actionable 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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has eight parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and a description that provides no context. This is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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 parameter explanations. With eight parameters including item_id, name, slug, public, position, description, accept-language, and queryFilterString, the absence of any semantic guidance is a critical gap.
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 is only 'Update One', which is a tautology that restates the verb in the tool name without naming the resource or scope. It does not clarify what is being updated, how items are identified, or what distinguishes this tool from the many other update_* 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of required context, and no exclusions. An agent is left without any basis for selecting this tool over the numerous sibling update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.