update_recipe

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses the partial merge behavior, field ranges, and constraints. It states unspecified fields keep their values, explaining the merge semantics. It does not explicitly mention side effects like permanent modification or return values, but 'edit recipe' implies mutation.

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 well-structured with clear sections and bullet points for each recipe category. The length is justified by the complexity of the patch object, and 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?

The description covers the complex input structure comprehensively and references get_recipe_schema for full schema details. It does not specify the return value or error handling, but given the complexity and lack of output schema, it is quite complete.

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 input schema only shows image_id and patch (additionalProperties), but the description thoroughly documents all nested fields with units, ranges, and an example. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage and adds significant meaning.

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 tool's function: merging a partial recipe into the image's edit recipe, described as 'the usual way to edit'. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_recipe by emphasizing partial updates.

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 on how to use it ('only supply fields you want to change') and implies it is the standard editing tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or use alternatives like set_recipe or reset_recipe, lacking explicit exclusions.

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