mealie_mark_recipe_made

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'set' without revealing side effects (e.g., overwrites the existing timestamp), the meaning of the 'confirmed_by_user' parameter, or any authentication or prerequisite requirements. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral context.

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, clear sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the action and includes the essential format detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 simple write operation with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the effect of the 'confirmed_by_user' parameter, the behavior on existing timestamps, or what the response will be. While the tool is simple, the lack of behavioral and parameter detail makes it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly with confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the ISO 8601 date-time format for the 'timestamp' parameter, which is valuable. However, it provides no explanation for 'slug_or_id' or 'confirmed_by_user', leaving most parameters under-explained. The partial compensation is insufficient for a 3-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 clearly states a specific action: 'Set a recipe's last-made timestamp using an ISO 8601 date-time.' It identifies the verb (set), the resource (recipe's last-made timestamp), and a key format constraint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mealie_get_recipe or mealie_update_recipe_ingredients.

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 you need to mark a recipe as made, this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. There are no competing tools that perform the same action, so the implied usage is sufficient but not explicitly guided.

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