update_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose important partial-update semantics and the ingredient removal convention, which goes beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't mention side effects, required permissions, response behavior, or validation constraints.

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, with two sentences that each add direct value. It avoids repetition and boilerplate, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 28 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It omits guidance for most parameters, return values, error conditions, and operational context, leaving substantial gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 18%, so the description must compensate for the large number of undocumented parameters. It only explains ingredient removal, while most other fields (nutrition values, timings, flags, associations) receive no semantic guidance beyond their names. This is insufficient for a 28-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing recipe') and clearly signals that this is a mutation of an existing entity, which distinguishes it from create_recipe and delete_recipe. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 clear, actionable guidance: pass only changed fields, and use {id, _destroy: true} to remove ingredients. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, but the intended usage is clear.

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