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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description earns credit for explaining why: images and notes replace the whole array rather than appending, which is exactly the destruction an agent needs to anticipate. It leaves one behavioral gap — whether a partial `meta` object merges with existing meta or overwrites it — which matters for a destructive nested patch.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: scope first, allowed fields and replacement semantics second, exclusion plus alternative last. No repetition of schema types or annotation restatement.

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 need no explanation, and the description covers scope, exclusions, and array-replacement behavior for a destructive mutation. The unresolved merge-vs-replace semantics for `meta` and the absence of any failure/permission context keep it from fully covering a nested-object patch tool.

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 the parameter burden. It enumerates the patchable fields (title, subtitle, summary, description, images, meta, notes) and adds the array-replacement rule, but it does not explain the sub-fields inside `meta`, the minProperties=1 constraint, or the role of `recipeId`, leaving real meaning undocumented.

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 and resource ("updates allowed fields on a saved recipe in your library") and immediately bounds the operation to a named field set. The closing clause names the sibling it is not (apply_recipe_patches) and the content it will not touch (ingredients, steps), so an agent can separate it from add_recipe or apply_recipe_patches without reading the schema.

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?

Explicitly excludes ingredient/step edits and routes that case to apply_recipe_patches with the reason (cooking-time edits in a session snapshot). It does not cover the other plausible alternatives — revert_recipe_edit for undoing a change, or add_recipe for new content — so the routing is clear but incomplete across the sibling set.

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