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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful scope information by stating the operation cannot delete or publish and that a current version is required. It stops short of explaining what happens on a version mismatch (conflict/rejection) or that field sets like ingredients and personRefs are replaced wholesale, which matters for a destructive update.

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 beginning with "Use this when" that packs the trigger, the preconditions, and the exclusion with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage in the schema, the description only needs to frame intent and scope, which it does. The one gap is patch semantics — whether omitted fields are preserved and whether list fields are replaced — which is left to the nested schema descriptions.

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 100% and every parameter is individually documented, including expectedVersion and idempotencyKey semantics, so the schema carries the burden. The description only gestures at recipeRef and expectedVersion ("returned reference and current version") without adding format or failure behavior beyond what the schema already says.

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 ("change a private recipe") and bounds the scope with "it cannot delete or publish", which separates it from creation or removal semantics. It doesn't name any sibling (create_recipe, get_recipe, update_note) to differentiate itself explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Use this when you need to change a private recipe" plus the requirement of a "returned reference and current version" gives a clear precondition for calling it, and "cannot delete or publish" declares an exclusion. No alternative tool is named for the cases it excludes, so it is context without routing.

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