households_recipe_actions_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 discloses that this is a PUT/replace operation but does not state whether the operation requires specific permissions, what happens if the item_id does not exist, whether omitted fields are cleared, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 description is front-loaded but bloated with a large keyword list that repeats the tool name and partial strings. The substantive information ('Replace (full update) recipe action' and the PUT endpoint) is present but surrounded by low-value SEO-style keywords.

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?

Given a mutation tool with two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It does not cover preconditions, side effects, field-level requirements, or error behavior, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It does not explain the item_id path parameter, nor does it clarify the body fields (actionType enum values, title, url, groupId, householdId) or that all five body fields are required. The keyword dump adds no semantic value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replace (full update) recipe action' with the PUT endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_one, delete_one, and get_one implicitly through 'Replace (full update)'. However, it does not explicitly name the read/create/delete siblings or explain the difference between this and a partial update.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., does the recipe action need to exist first?), and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'full update' hints at replace semantics versus a potential partial update, but no such sibling is named or contrasted.

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