recipes_units_merge_one

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the HTTP method and path (PUT /api/units/merge), which signals a mutating call. It does not say whether the source unit is deleted, whether recipe references are rewritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are required — all critical for a merge/destructive operation.

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 two fragments are front-loaded and short, but the remainder is a large SEO keyword dump ('merge, update, replace, edit, modify, save, write, put, mealie') that adds no agent-facing value and buries the one useful datum (the PUT endpoint). The description is bloated relative to its informational 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?

For a mutating, likely irreversible merge operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description provides almost nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely or correctly. Merge direction, side effects, and permissions are all unaddressed.

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 the single body parameter contains fromUnit/toUnit with no descriptions. The description adds nothing about these fields; in particular it does not clarify merge direction (which UUID is the source being replaced and which is the surviving target), which is the key ambiguity for this operation. It fails to compensate for the total 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 the verb and resource with 'Merge unit' and adds the endpoint '[PUT /api/units/merge]', so the core action is identifiable. However, it never explains what merging a unit actually does (e.g. reassigning references from a source unit to a target unit) and does not distinguish this operation from siblings like recipes_units_update_one or recipes_foods_merge_one. The leading 'Merge One — Recipes: Units' is essentially a restated title.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus recipes_units_update_one, recipes_units_delete_one, or recipes_foods_merge_one. The keyword list ('update unit, replace unit, edit unit') actively blurs the line with sibling update tools rather than clarifying when a merge is appropriate. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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