Edit an Umami recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavioral traits: fields are edited selectively, omitted fields are preserved, and providing tags replaces the entire tag list. It does not mention return values, permissions, or error behavior, but the disclosed traits go well beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by concise behavioral notes. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence adds value.

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 has 12 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the core update semantics but does not address what is returned, how missing recipeIds are handled, or the structure of nested fields like nutritionInformation. The information provided is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for a complex 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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds important semantics about how tags behave (replacement) and clarifies the update model (preserve omitted fields), but it does not explain the purpose or format of individual parameters like nutritionInformation, importUrl, or public, leaving many params to be inferred from names and types.

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 starts with 'Edit selected fields of an existing Umami recipe,' which clearly states the verb (edit), resource (existing Umami recipe), and scope (selected fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_recipe (new recipe) and get_recipe (read-only).

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 phrase 'existing Umami recipe' implies this tool is for updates, contrasting with create_recipe, and 'Omitted fields are preserved' explains the partial-update behavior. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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