invariance_recipe_update

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the mutation is scoped to enabled and default_mode, implying id is an identifier rather than a patchable field. It does not disclose side effects or result behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is a single, tight sentence with no filler. The parenthetical list of fields is directly relevant and front-loaded, making efficient use of the space.

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?

The tool is simple enough that this minimal description is minimally viable, especially with annotations and the schema's enum. However, the absence of output schema, usage guidance, and parameter explanation keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 only echoes the property names in parentheses without explaining their meaning. It adds minimal value by signaling which fields are patchable, but it does not compensate for the bare schema.

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 ('Patch'), a clear resource ('a recipe'), and enumerates the affected fields ('enabled, default_mode'). This cleanly differentiates the tool from sibling read operations such as invariance_recipe_get and invariance_recipe_list.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when it should not be used, or what prerequisites apply. The description relies entirely on inference from the tool name and sibling list.

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