Recipe Update Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a recipe's name or description' without revealing consequences such as whether the recipe must exist, what happens if both fields are omitted, or whether the operation is destructive or reversible. The description adds little beyond the title and name, so it fails to disclose important behavioral traits.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is necessary and no redundancy exists, making it appropriately sized for a simple update tool.

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's simplicity, the schema fully documents parameters, and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential missing context: which fields can be updated. It does not explicitly mention that the recipe must already exist or that both fields can be updated simultaneously, but these are minor gaps and not critical for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already documents each parameter (e.g., 'New name (omit to keep current)'). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 action (update) on a specific resource (recipe) and lists the exact fields affected (name or description). It clearly differentiates from recipe_create_tool (creation) and recipe_details_tool (viewing), so an agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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 when updating a recipe's name or description, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other fields or mention alternative tools for different updates (e.g., adding ingredients), so it lacks explicit when-not guidance but is still understandable in the context of the sibling tools.

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