update_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the partial-update behavior, the destructive consequence of omitted steps ('an omitted step is deleted'), the zero-based indexing with silent empty-string rendering for out-of-range indexes, and the server's rejection of such indexes. It also explains Jinja templating, scaling behavior, and the convention for Jinja comments. This is exceptionally rich and transparent.

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 long but every section earns its place. It is front-loaded with the most important behavior (partial update, step replacement) then proceeds to templating details, with clear headers like 'STEP TEMPLATING' and 'CRITICAL'. The examples are concrete and useful for an AI agent. No filler or repetition of the schema is present.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (nested update object, step/ingredient lifecycle, templating), the description covers all major hazards: partial updates, step replacement, id handling, index counting, silent errors, and scaling. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. No critical behavioral gaps remain that would cause an agent to misuse 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema, especially for the 'update' object and its nested steps. It explains that a step without an id is created as new, an omitted step is deleted, and the same holds for ingredients within a step. It details how template placeholders work ({{ ingredients[0] }} etc.), indexing semantics, and the critical silent-failure mode. Even with 50% schema coverage, the description compensates where it matters most, making the tool safe to invoke correctly.

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 opens with 'Update an existing recipe. Only the fields you set are changed; the rest of the recipe is read and written back unchanged.' This clearly states the verb (update), resource (recipe), and a critical scope nuance (partial update) that distinguishes it from create/delete/get siblings. It also explicitly contrasts with get_recipe and the replacement semantics for steps, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool, such as 'Call get_recipe first and pass back every step you want to keep' and explains that passing 'steps' replaces the entire step list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is concrete and actionable, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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