recipes_foods_update_one

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a full replace ('Replace (full update)'), implying omitted fields may be overwritten, but omits auth requirements, side effects, reversibility, and response behavior.

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 core statement is front-loaded, but it is followed by a long keyword list that adds no operational value for an agent. The keyword spam makes the definition unnecessarily bloated.

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, and 0% schema description coverage, the description lacks critical details: required body fields, permissions, side effects, and response semantics. It identifies the operation and endpoint but remains incomplete for safe invocation.

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% and there are two required parameters. The endpoint template implies item_id is a path parameter, but the complex body object with required 'name' and many fields is not described at all.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('food'), and clarifies scope with 'Replace (full update)'. It distinguishes from siblings by name but does not explicitly route to alternatives such as recipes_foods_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?

No guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. 'Replace (full update)' hints at complete replacement but does not explain when full replacement is appropriate versus merging or partial edits.

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