recipe_crud_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 behavioral burden. It says "Replace (full update)" which implies the body overwrites the recipe, but it does not disclose that unset fields may be cleared, whether this requires auth, or that it targets a record by existing slug. For a destructive full-replace mutation 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 first sentence is a reasonable one-liner, but the trailing "Keywords:" block is a long comma-separated list of near-synonyms and the tool name repeated, padding the definition without adding meaning. It is not front-loaded around a single clear statement.

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 full-replace mutation with no annotations, no output schema, a large untagged nested body schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot tell what gets overwritten, what the slug must be, or when to prefer the patch variant.

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 two required parameters. It only says "updates a recipe by existing slug and data," which vaguely gestures at the slug/path parameter and the body but adds no semantics about the nested Recipe-Input body fields. Far too thin given 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Replace (full update) recipe") and even identifies the HTTP method and path. The "Replace (full update)" phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling patch_one, but the description never names that alternative explicitly, so the sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of when to use this full-replace tool versus the sibling patch_one (partial update) or recipe_crud_update_many. The keyword dump at the end does not substitute for actual usage context.

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