Update a SnappFood basket in dry-run mode by submitting basket ID and JSON or file body, with explicit confirmation required for write operations.
Update basket (dry-run)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| basket_id | No | ||
| body-file | No | ||
| body-json | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. '(dry-run)' is the only behavioral clue, but it does not explain whether the tool writes anything, what side effects occur, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains.
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?
Extremely short but in a way that under-specifies rather than efficiently front-loads. Two words and a parenthetical provide almost no useful information for an 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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It leaves the agent without any of the context needed 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% across 5 parameters (token, confirm, basket_id, body-file, body-json), and the description adds no information about any of them. There is no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.
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?
States a specific verb 'update' and resource 'basket', but the parenthetical '(dry-run)' is ambiguous and does not clarify what a basket update entails or how it differs from the sibling tools food_basket_create and food_basket_delete. The core purpose is vague beyond the name.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites mentioned. The '(dry-run)' hint implies a preview mode but does not say when an agent should prefer this over a real update or create/delete operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.