recipes_foods_update_one

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

The description implicitly indicates a mutation (update) but lacks crucial details such as whether it performs a partial or full replacement, required permissions, side effects, or return value. With no annotations, the description must carry the burden, and it fails to do so adequately.

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?

While the description is short, it is not effectively concise; it omits essential information. It provides only a bare HTTP method and a placeholder, wasting the opportunity to convey critical context.

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 the input schema with nested objects, the lack of output schema, and the presence of many sibling tools for CRUD operations on foods, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not cover behavior, side effects, or even basic usage instructions.

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 description adds no semantic value to the parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and neither 'item_id' nor 'body' are explained. The description could clarify that item_id is the food identifier and body contains the updated fields, but it 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 'Update One' is a tautology that merely restates the tool's name without specifying what entity is being updated. It fails to communicate that this tool updates a food item, relying solely on the tool name for 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like recipes_foods_create_one or recipes_foods_delete_one. The description does not mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or use cases.

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