update_households_mealplans_rules_by_itemUpdate a specific household meal plan rule by item ID, adjusting its assigned day, meal type, or filter criteria.
Update One
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | No | ||
| item_id | Yes | ||
| entryType | 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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Update One' only implies mutation and gives no information about side effects, permission requirements, scope, or how the update interacts with existing data. This is far below the level needed for a mutation tool.
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 conciseness. It contains no front-loaded useful information and does not earn its place by clarifying the tool's purpose.
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 a five-parameter schema with enums and an output schema, the description provides no context about what resource is updated, which parameters are relevant for which scenarios, or any behavioral expectations. It is completely inadequate for correct tool selection and invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention item_id (required), day, entryType, queryFilterString, or accept-language at all. The agent receives no semantic guidance beyond raw schema names and enums.
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 'Update One' is a tautology that merely restates the verb from the tool name without identifying the resource or behavior. It does not mention households, meal plans, rules, or items, so an agent cannot tell what this tool actually updates or how it differs from the many other update_*_by_item siblings.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_households_mealplans_rules_by_item's sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions, leaving the agent completely without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.