Change an existing meal template by editing its name or replacing its food items with updated nutritional details. Solve template maintenance by submitting the template ID and new values.
Update a meal template name or items
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Template ID | |
| name | No | New template name | |
| items | No | Updated food items |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that name or items can be updated, but does not explain whether omitted fields are preserved, whether items replaces the full list, what happens if the template ID is invalid, or any permission requirements.
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 short sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The tool is relatively simple and parameters are fully described in the schema, but the lack of annotations means the description should cover update semantics more thoroughly. It does not mention whether the items array replaces existing items, how partial updates behave, or what the response looks like. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a slight mapping between its stated 'name or items' and the name/items parameters, but provides no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers.
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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('meal template'), and explicitly names the changeable fields ('name or items'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_meal_template, delete_meal_template, list_meal_templates, log_meal_template, and share_meal_template.
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 implies this tool is for modifying an existing meal template, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling tool names help, but the description itself offers only implied usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.