Scale Individual Ingredient

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a four-step process (locate ingredient, parse amount, apply factor, return original and scaled versions) and the fact that units and descriptions are preserved, but it never says whether the recipe is mutated or a copy is returned, nor what happens when the ingredient name matches nothing or multiple entries.

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 purpose sentence is correctly front-loaded, but the second paragraph ('useful for recipe modifications, dietary adjustments...') largely restates the later 'Use this tool when' bullet list, and the process list repeats what the schema-adjacent behavior implies. Two overlapping bullet lists cost space without adding information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted, and the nested one-parameter object is fully documented in the schema. The remaining gap is behavioral: without annotations, an agent still cannot tell whether this is a read-only computation or a persistent mutation, which matters for a recipe-modifying 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 100%, including the meaning of scale_factor and the partial-match allowance for ingredient_name, so the schema already does this work. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: scale a single ingredient's amount by a custom multiplication factor. The phrase 'individual ingredient scaling ... without changing the entire recipe proportions' implicitly distinguishes it from scale_recipe_servings and scale_multiple_ingredients, though it never names those 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?

A 'Use this tool when' list gives five concrete scenarios (salt/spice levels, protein content, sugar/fat reduction, dietary customization, taste tuning), which is solid positive guidance. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming scale_multiple_ingredients as the alternative when several ingredients need adjustment.

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