set_rating

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 signals a write via the POST endpoint, but does not say whether an existing rating is overwritten, whether the call is idempotent, what the valid rating range is, or what auth/permissions are needed. For a mutation with a surprising 'isFavorite' payload, this is a real gap.

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 useful content is one clause ('Sets the user's rating for a recipe'); the rest is title echo, endpoint repetition, and a rambling keyword list that consumes most of the text without adding meaning.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs more than this. Missing: rating value semantics/range, overwrite behavior, and authentication expectations for a user-scoped endpoint.

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% with 3 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implies that 'slug' refers to the recipe and mentions 'rating' in passing; it explains nothing about the rating scale/type, the uuid `id`, or why `isFavorite` is part of a rating update.

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 action and resource: 'Sets the user's rating for a recipe', backed by the POST endpoint and the input shape (id, slug, body). This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_logged_in_user_rating_for_recipe and get_logged_in_user_ratings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 use this tool versus get_logged_in_user_rating_for_recipe (read) or add_favorite (favorite mutation). The long keyword block ('set rating, create rating, add rating...') is search-synonym stuffing, not usage context.

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