skylight_update_recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state without being flagged destructive. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not say which fields are replaceable, whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, or what permissions/scopes are required for a 5-parameter mutation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy, so it is only 'adequate' rather than genuinely well-crafted.

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?

This is a five-parameter mutation with no output schema, no parameter documentation anywhere, and only bare safety annotations. For a tool of that complexity the description leaves an agent unable to construct a correct call beyond the required id, which is a substantial completeness 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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters (id, frameId, summary, description, meal_category_id), and the description compensates for none of it. An agent cannot tell from either source what 'frameId' means here, whether id refers to the recipe or a frame, or how meal_category_id values are obtained.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Update') with a specific resource ('a meal recipe'), so an agent knows this is a mutation of a recipe record rather than of a planned meal. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the neighboring skylight_update_meal or skylight_create_recipe/delete_recipe in any way, so it lands at 'clear but no sibling differentiation.'

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., the recipe must already exist), and no pointing to alternatives such as skylight_update_meal or skylight_create_recipe. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this edits an existing recipe.

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