recipes_units_update_one

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a PUT endpoint and a full replacement, but omits permissions, authentication requirements, side effects on omitted fields, reversibility, and error 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 description is front-loaded, but it is followed by a long keyword-stuffed list of near-synonyms that bloats the text without adding meaning. The useful information could be stated far more concisely.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete: it lacks parameter details, usage guidelines, permission requirements, and behavioral context needed to safely invoke the tool.

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 description does not explain the two parameters beyond indicating that item_id appears in the URL path. The body object and its many fields are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Update One — Recipes: Units' and clarifies it is a full replacement via 'Replace (full update) unit' and PUT /api/units/{item_id}. This clearly distinguishes the operation from create, get, delete, and merge siblings.

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?

It implies usage for replacing an existing unit, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_one, merge_one, get_one, or delete_one. There are no exclusions or contextual conditions.

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