prepare_upsert_safety_constraintStage adding or updating a confirmed food allergy, intolerance, dietary restriction, or excluded food so the safety constraint can be reviewed and approved before it is saved.
Stage adding or updating a confirmed food allergy, intolerance, dietary restriction, or excluded food.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| severity | 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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context via 'Stage', signaling this does not commit the change directly – but it stops short of explaining the confirm_action/cancel_action workflow that a staged mutation implies.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource come first. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the reason other dimensions are thin.
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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema-level descriptions, the definition is under-specified. It omits what 'stage' operationally means (need for confirm_action), what the tool returns, and the meaning of severity/source/notes.
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, so the description carries the burden and only partially delivers. It effectively enumerates the 'type' choices, but those values are already visible in the schema enum, and name, notes, source, and severity are left entirely unexplained.
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 (stage adding/updating) and a precise resource (confirmed food allergy, intolerance, dietary restriction, excluded food), which separates it from prepare_delete_safety_constraint and list_safety_constraints. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like prepare_merge_food_preferences or prepare_update_food_profile that also touch preference data.
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 only hint of a usage condition is the word 'confirmed', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. Nothing tells the agent why it would stage a constraint here versus editing the food profile or merging preferences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.