organizer_tools_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 does add one real behavioral trait — "Replace (full update)" plus PUT semantics implies fields omitted from the body are cleared, which is information the schema cannot convey. However, it says nothing about required permissions, side effects on recipes referencing the tool, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 first two sentences are tight and front-loaded, but roughly half the text is a redundant keyword list ("tool, tools, organizer tools, organizers, update, replace, edit, modify, save, write, put, mealie") that adds no information and bloats the definition.

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 destructive full-replace mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the definition is under-specified. Missing are permission requirements, replace semantics for omitted fields, and any description of the two parameters the caller must supply.

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 for both parameters (item_id and the nested RecipeToolCreate body with name/householdsWithTool). The only hint given is the path template, which reveals item_id is a UUID path argument; the body structure and its fields are never explained.

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 specific verb and resource ("Update One — Organizer: Tools. Replace (full update) tool") and pins the operation with the HTTP method and path (PUT /api/organizers/tools/{item_id}). It also distinguishes full replacement from partial update, though it never names a sibling tool to route against.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The trailing "Keywords:" block is a keyword dump restating the name and synonyms, not usage context, so an agent gets no signal on how this differs from organizer_tools_create_one or get_one.

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