prepare_confirm_home_cookingStage a saved meal or recipe card as home cooked and apply the bounded weekly reward ledger, then preview the change for explicit approval before confirming.
Stage confirming a saved recipe meal or recipe card as home cooked and applying the bounded weekly reward ledger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meal_id | No | ||
| recipe_card_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile: writable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false), and closed-world. The description adds useful context that this is a staging action with a reward ledger side effect. However, it does not elaborate on non-idempotency, what staging entails, or what happens if the action is never confirmed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The phrase 'bounded weekly reward ledger' is slightly jargon-heavy but still concise and informative.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a staging mutation with two parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is too sparse. It omits critical details about the staging process, parameter selection, and the reward ledger's bounded nature, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.
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. It only vaguely maps to the two parameters by mentioning 'a saved recipe meal or recipe card', but provides no details on format, constraints (minLength 8, maxLength 160), or how to choose between meal_id and recipe_card_id. The anyOf requirement is also unaddressed.
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 specific verb ('Stage confirming') and resource ('saved recipe meal or recipe card as home cooked') and mentions a side effect ('applying the bounded weekly reward ledger'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like prepare_consume_meal or prepare_log_meal_request_serving.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'Stage' implies a preliminary step, but the description does not state that confirmation via confirm_action is required, nor does it contrast with other meal-logging siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.