Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — no ingredient patches are applied, and the recipe payload mode does not persist. However, it never reconciles the destructiveHint=true annotation with the claim of a non-persistent update, nor does it say what the recipeId mode actually overwrites.

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 sentences, no filler, with the non-obvious constraint ("without ingredient patches") placed first and the branch conditions immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 four-parameter tool with a deeply nested recipe payload, the description correctly identifies where the payload comes from and what persistence to expect, which is the hard part. The remaining gaps — the sessionId parameter and the measurementSystem values — are small but real against a 0% schema description coverage.

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 carry parameter meaning; it does explain the dichotomy between recipeId (saved/session state) and recipe (an unsaved payload from display_recipe). The sessionId parameter is never mentioned, and the measurementSystem enum ('source', 'metric', 'imperial') is not characterized at all.

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 gives a concrete action (set the measurement system) plus a distinguishing claim, "without ingredient patches," that separates it from the closest sibling, apply_recipe_patches. It also names its own input source, display_recipe, making the two operating modes recognizable. It stops short of stating that measurementSystem accepts source/metric/imperial, but the intent is recognizable.

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?

It spells out the two branching cases: pass recipeId for a saved recipe's session state, or pass the full recipe payload returned by display_recipe to update an unsaved card without persistence. That is real when-to-use guidance tied to specific parameters. It does not explicitly exclude use cases or state what to do if both recipeId and recipe are supplied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.