mealie_update_recipe_ingredients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the entire update flow: fetches current recipe, replaces ingredient list, applies update_fields, and patches via API. It also explains backward compatibility and return value (updated slug and ingredient count). However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing ingredient data or permissions needed, but the flow description covers key behavior.

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 moderately sized but well-organized: a short summary, a note on input formats, a step-by-step of the operation, and clear examples. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary details. It could be slightly more concise in the raw string example, but no sentence is wasted.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers the main aspects well: what it does, what inputs look like, how it works, and what it returns. The output schema is not provided, but the description states the return value. The main gap is not mentioning the effect on existing ingredients (it replaces them, which is implied) or any potential errors, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use.

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 explains the 'ingredients' parameter in detail, including the required fields and optional fields, and provides example formats for both structured dicts and raw strings. It also clarifies 'update_fields' as additional fields to apply. The 'slug' and 'confirmed_by_user' parameters are not explicitly described, but they are self-explanatory from the schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Replace the ingredient list of an existing Mealie recipe with structured data.' It uses a specific verb (replace) and resource (ingredient list of a Mealie recipe), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mealie_parse_ingredients (which parses) and mealie_update_recipe_image (which updates a different aspect).

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 explains when to use it (to update ingredients) and mentions integration with mealie_parse_ingredients for structured input. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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