update_recipe

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

With no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one important trait—arrays replace whole lists—and hints at preview mode, but says nothing about permissions, irreversible changes, the role of the confirm flag, or what happens on validation errors.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical semantic note about arrays. It is efficient and avoids waste, though its terseness leaves the reader wanting more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 has a nested patch object, three parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and a confirm flag that is never explained. The description is far too thin to be helpful for correct invocation, even though an output schema exists to cover return values.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains array replacement semantics for the patch object but never mentions the required slug, the confirm boolean, or the nested patch structure. It adds limited meaning beyond what the schema titles already imply.

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 says 'Preview or PATCH selected fields', which implies partial update but never names the resource (recipe). The tool name provides context, but the description alone gives only a vague purpose without explicitly distinguishing it from siblings like create_recipe or import_recipe.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_recipe or import_recipe. The mention of 'Preview or PATCH' hints at a dry-run vs apply pattern, but there are no conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives to help an agent choose correctly.

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