recipes_foods_merge_one

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state that merging is destructive (likely removes one food), its permissions required, or the impact on recipes. The agent cannot assess safety or side effects.

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 under-specified, not concise. 'Merge One' and an endpoint are insufficient as a description. Every sentence should add value, but here there is almost no content.

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 the complexity of a merge operation (no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what merging entails (e.g., which food survives, data transfer, side effects on linked recipes), leaving the agent ill-equipped to use the tool safely.

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%, but the description adds no parameter information. The schema defines 'fromFood' and 'toFood' as UUIDs, but their roles (source and target of merge) are not explained. The description should clarify these semantics but does not.

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 'Merge One' with an HTTP endpoint merely repeats the name and doesn't specify that it merges food items. Differentiating from sibling tools like recipes_foods_create_one or recipes_units_merge_one is impossible without additional context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when merging is appropriate, or what scenarios to avoid. Agents have no basis to choose this tool over other food operations.

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