weekplan_edit_recipe

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

The annotations only declare idempotentHint=true, so the description carries the rest. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics ('only the fields you provide will be updated') and a non-obvious constraint (Dutch for name, ingredient names, steps). It doesn't address permissions or whether replaced steps/ingredients are recoverable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by partial-update semantics and use cases. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

With four params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers partial updates, use cases, and the language constraint adequately. Only the absence of sibling routing and any note on destructive replacement of steps/ingredients leaves a small gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it imposes a Dutch-language requirement on the values of name, ingredients, and steps, which no schema field states. It does not explain the merge-vs-replace behavior at field level beyond the general optionality note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit an existing recipe by its id') and enumerates the concrete edits supported (rename, translate, change steps, replace ingredients). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like weekplan_add_recipe or weekplan_delete_recipe, so differentiation is implied by 'existing' rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear positive triggers — rename, translate, change steps, replace ingredients — which tell an agent when this tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it (e.g. use add_recipe for new recipes).

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