update_households_mealplans_by_itemUpdate a household meal plan entry by item ID, setting the date, meal type, recipe, or text to keep meal plans accurate.
Update One
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| date | Yes | ||
| text | No | ||
| userId | Yes | ||
| groupId | Yes | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| recipeId | No | ||
| entryType | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Update One' adds nothing beyond the already-known fact that this is an update. It says nothing about whether the update is partial or full, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur.
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?
Two words is not effective conciseness; it is severe under-specification. The description has no front-loaded purpose, resource, or usage details, so its brevity does not serve the agent.
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?
For a mutation tool with 5 required parameters, 9 total parameters, and no annotations, this description is far too sparse for an agent to invoke it correctly. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the complete lack of input and usage semantics.
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 schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description names none of them. An agent gets no explanation of required identifiers like item_id, groupId, userId, or date, nor of optional fields like text, entryType, or recipeId.
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 restates the update verb from the title without naming the resource or clarifying what 'One' refers to. It does not distinguish this tool from get_households_mealplans_by_item, delete_households_mealplans_by_item, or any other *_by_item update tool.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling household mealplan or update tools. No selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.