Update recipe preferences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully clarifies the PATCH semantics ('omitted fields are unchanged'), which is real value since a destructive tool could otherwise be read as a full replacement, but it says nothing about auth, confirmation, or the store/recipe field-level replacement noted in the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the partial-update semantic immediately following. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the destructive annotation plus the partial-update note cover the essentials. However, a 12-parameter mutation tool would benefit from a pointer to fetch current preferences first or a note on the field-level text replacement, so completeness is only adequate.

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?

With 12 all-optional parameters at 58% schema coverage, the 'any subset / omitted fields are unchanged' semantic is the single most important thing an agent needs and it is stated explicitly, complementing the schema's per-field descriptions. It does not add per-parameter meaning beyond that, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (the preferences prompt and settings), which separates it from the read sibling get_recipe_preferences. It does not call out how it differs from other update tools like update_ingredients, but the verb+resource pairing is clear.

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 mention of the read sibling get_recipe_preferences to inspect current values first, and no conditions or exclusions. The agent is told what it does but not when to reach for it.

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