mealie_update_recipe_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the image is uploaded as a real multipart file, never stored as an external URL, requires explicit user confirmation, and explains crop unit semantics. This is strong transparency for a mutation tool.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the exact purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the core workflow, prerequisites, and parameter semantics thoroughly. It does not explain return/error behavior, but an output schema exists, so that omission is acceptable.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining image_source (HTTP/file/local path), crop_box format ([left, top, right, bottom]), and crop_units (percent/fraction/pixels). slug_or_id and confirmed_by_user are not explicitly detailed but are inferable from names and context.

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?

Purpose is stated with a specific verb and resource: 'Upload or replace the cover image of an existing Mealie recipe.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_recipe_image and upload_recipe_asset.

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?

Provides clear context: existing recipe, image source types, and explicit prerequisites ('Requires mutations enabled and an explicit user confirmation'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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