set_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that omitted fields reset to defaults, which is a key behavior, but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or return values. It adds value beyond the schema but is incomplete.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and object. It communicates the core behavior and the important reset semantics without any filler or redundant information.

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 essential purpose is clear, and the reset behavior is disclosed, but the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. It does not cover prerequisites, return behavior, or how the recipe object should be structured, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

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 provides no explanation of the 'image_id' or 'recipe' parameters. The recipe object is open-ended (additionalProperties), and nothing clarifies its structure or how it relates to the image. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Replace') and a specific resource ('entire edit recipe'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_recipe and reset_recipe by emphasizing full replacement and default-resetting behavior. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 implies usage for full replacement versus partial updates via 'entire' and 'omitted fields reset to defaults,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use guidance. The context gives some direction but falls short of clear exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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