update_recipe_ingredient

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by revealing that the endpoint silently ignores ingredient_id and returns 200 with the original ingredient still attached. This is a significant non-obvious behavior that would otherwise lead to silent data corruption. It does not describe all side effects or response details, but the most critical trap is disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the operation, gives the endpoint, then flags the critical caveat and workaround. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the main failure mode well. However, it does not explain what the response contains beyond a 200 status, and the as_json parameter remains unexplained. The tool is usable for a simple update, but the context around parameter behavior and return value is incomplete.

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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate. The PUT path usefully maps recipe_id and recipe_ingredient_id, and the note reinforces that ingredient_id is ignored. However, as_json is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the fields object's allowed keys are only partially addressed through schema text, not the description. This leaves a meaningful semantic gap.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Update one ingredient line,' reinforced by the PUT path identifying recipe and recipe_ingredient IDs. It is specific enough to distinguish updating a recipe ingredient line from updating a recipe or an ingredient master record, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Update one ingredient line') and clear when-not-to-use guidance: attempting to swap an ingredient via ingredient_id silently fails, and the tool must not be used for that purpose—delete and create instead. This directly prevents a likely misuse.

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