Update a recipe

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying that this is a partial update ('Only provided fields change'), which is not fully implied by the annotation alone. It does not mention destructive side effects, but the non-destructive nature is clear from the update semantics.

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 concise, containing only one sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core functionality and the key constraint of partial updates.

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?

The description provides enough context for typical use cases, and the presence of an output schema (though not shown) helps. It does not mention error handling or return value specifics, but for a straightforward update tool this 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% for top-level parameters. The tool description only hints at some parameters ('fix an ingredient, add steps, change servings, tags, image or source') but does not explain the meaning, types, or constraints of each field. The nested ingredient object has descriptions, but the overall parameter semantics are under-specified, and the description does not sufficiently compensate.

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 action ('Edit a stored recipe') and enumerates what can be changed (ingredient, steps, servings, tags, image, source). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recipe or search_recipes.

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 phrase 'Only provided fields change' implies partial-update semantics, which guides when to use this tool (modifying existing recipes). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for a competent agent.

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