households_cookbooks_update_one

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a full replacement (unmentioned fields would be reset/dropped), which is real behavioral value. However it says nothing about required permissions, what the response contains, or error behavior for a mutation endpoint.

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?

The operation summary is front-loaded and clear, but roughly two-thirds of the text is a redundant keyword dump (update, replace, edit, modify, save, write, put, mealie, plus restatements of the tool name) that adds no selection value.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the definition should explain permissions, replacement consequences for each body field, and return behavior. It covers only the replace semantics, leaving substantial gaps.

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% and there are two parameters (item_id and a nested CreateCookBook body with name, slug, public, position, description, queryFilterString). The description adds no information about any of these fields, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Update One — Households: Cookbooks. Replace (full update) cookbook') plus the HTTP verb/path PUT, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like households_cookbooks_update_many or create_one, which keeps it below 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?

The parenthetical '(full update)' implies the replace semantics and indirectly signals when to prefer this over a partial update, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the update_many alternative, and no stated prerequisites or preconditions.

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