snipeit_gen_consumables_2Update an existing Snipe-IT consumable by ID with revised name, quantity, category, and optional details to keep inventory records accurate.
PUT /consumables/{id}: Updates a consumable. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation consumables-2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | No | ||
| confirm | No | Required when SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES=true. Exact string "YES" to apply this write. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating that it updates a consumable; it does not mention that this is a destructive full-replacement-style operation, what data may be lost, or how confirmation works.
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?
It is short and front-loaded with the verb and resource, but the second sentence 'Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation consumables-2' is meta-information that does not help an agent invoke the tool. The terseness reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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 destructive mutation with a complex nested body, three parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. The annotations cover the mutation safety profile, but the description does not explain required body fields or confirmation semantics, leaving an agent to infer almost everything from the schema.
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 only 33% and the only described parameter is the confirm string. The required id and the nested body object with required fields name, qty, and category_id plus many optional fields are undocumented in both schema and description. The description provides no compensating explanation for any parameter.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Updates a consumable.' However, it is essentially a restatement of the title 'PUT /consumables/{id}' and the generated operation name, with no detail about what fields can be updated or how it differs from the many sibling consumable endpoints.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as the consumable list/get/checkout endpoints in the sibling set. The agent receives no routing help beyond the HTTP method.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.