update_recipe

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 effectively adds critical context beyond what the input schema provides: it warns that the operation is 'DANGEROUS' and 'requires user confirmation,' which are essential behavioral traits (risk level and confirmation needs) not covered by the schema. This compensates well for the lack of annotations.

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 front-loaded with key information (purpose and danger warning) in just two sentences, with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by conveying critical details efficiently, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (a dangerous mutation tool with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job by covering purpose, risk, and scope. However, it lacks details on what happens on success/failure or error handling, which would be helpful for completeness. It compensates well but has minor gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only implies that parameters relate to 'find/replace' operations on 'text fields,' which is already clear from the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('update recipe fields using find/replace') and resource ('recipe'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_recipe' (read-only) and 'search_recipes' (searching). It specifies the scope ('any text field in a recipe'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 provides clear context by stating this is a 'DANGEROUS operation that requires user confirmation,' which implicitly guides when to use it (with caution and confirmation). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using 'read_recipe' to check first), so it lacks full explicit guidance.

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