freeze_recipe_portions

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

The description explains the core state change—marking portions as frozen—but does not disclose side effects, validation requirements, failure modes, or whether existing frozen entries are updated or duplicated. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it.

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 concise and front-loaded: the primary action appears first, and the clarifying event_id detail follows in a short second sentence. Every word adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 with four required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description gives a clear purpose but omits practical details like whether the recipe must already exist, whether event_id must reference a valid planner event, and what the tool returns or affects afterward.

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 descriptions already cover count, event_id, and servings, and the description adds useful context about event_id linking to the planner event. However, recipe_id has no schema description and is not explained in the description, leaving one of four required parameters underspecified.

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 a specific action: marking N portions of a previously cooked recipe as frozen. It also defines the role of event_id, tying the frozen entry to a planner event, which distinguishes it from simple leftover logging or frozen-recipe listing.

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 'previously cooked recipe' implies this should be used after cooking, and the event_id explanation anchors it to a planner event. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_leftover_meal, list_frozen_recipes, or delete_frozen_recipe, nor state when not to use it.

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