patch_one

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that the update is partial and keyed on an existing slug. It omits auth/permission requirements, what happens to unspecified fields, whether changes are reversible, and what a successful response returns.

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 front-loaded purpose and endpoint are good, but the definition is diluted by a redundant keyword block that repeats 'recipe' and synonyms of patch nearly a dozen times, none of which earn their place.

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 an elaborate required body object at 0% description coverage, the definition is too thin. An agent knows what the endpoint does but not how to safely call it or what the body must contain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a deeply nested body object, the description should compensate but offers only 'by existing slug and data'. The slug hint (must already exist) is mildly useful, but 'data' gives no meaning to the large Recipe-Input body the caller must construct.

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 definition states a specific verb+resource ('Partially update recipe') and even names the HTTP endpoint and path, so its purpose is unmistakable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling recipe_crud_update_one, leaving the agent to infer patch-vs-full-update semantics.

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 guidance on when to choose this over recipe_crud_update_one or patch_many. The long keyword list ('patch recipe, update recipe, edit recipe...') is search fodder, not usage direction, so no conditions or alternatives are actually provided.

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