Update an existing bar ingredient by changing only the fields you specify, such as name, origin, strength, images, or description.
Update an existing ingredient. Only provide fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| images | No | ||
| origin | No | ||
| strength | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| parent_ingredient_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't state whether this requires auth, whether changes are reversible, what happens on invalid ids, or any mutation semantics beyond the word 'Update'. Very thin behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.
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?
Two short sentences with no waste, front-loaded with the action and a patch semantics hint. Nothing extraneous.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a 7-param mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is too sparse. Agents lack the info to correctly construct calls (e.g., image id semantics, strength units).
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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only tells the agent to supply fields to change, but never explains what 'id', 'images' (integer array?), 'parent_ingredient_id', or 'strength' mean or expect. The schema titles are bare and provide little help.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Update an existing ingredient.' Distinguishable from bar_create_ingredient and bar_delete_ingredient by explicit 'update'/'existing' wording, but no differentiation from bar_update_cocktail beyond the resource 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?
The sentence 'Only provide fields you want to change' gives partial patch-style guidance, but there's no when-to-use direction versus siblings (e.g., when to prefer create vs update, or how it relates to bar_audit_ingredients or bar_set_flavor_profile).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.