recipes_foods_merge_one

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only the HTTP method and route (PUT /api/foods/merge). It says nothing about the irreversible/destructive nature of merging two foods, what happens to recipes or ingredients referencing the removed food, or required permissions.

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 essential content is front-loaded in two short clauses, but it is immediately followed by a long, redundant keyword list that repeats 'merge/update/replace/edit/modify/save/write' and adds no information. Significant bloat for a tool whose actual behavior is never explained.

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, unannotated mutation with no output schema and an undocumented nested parameter, the description is inadequate. Nothing tells the agent what the operation does to data or how to choose fromFood versus toFood.

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?

The single body parameter is a nested MergeFood object with fromFood and toFood at 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about them. Crucially, an agent cannot tell which UUID is kept and which is consumed from the description alone.

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 names a verb ('Merge') and resource ('food'), but 'Merge One — Recipes: Foods. Merge food.' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and never says what merging means operationally (which food survives, whether the source is deleted). It also fails to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling recipes_units_merge_one.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recipes_foods_update_one or recipes_foods_delete_one. The keyword block ('update food, replace food, edit food, modify food, save food, write food') is search bait rather than guidance and actively conflates a destructive merge with ordinary updates.

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