patch_recipes_by_slug_last_made

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update', implying a mutation, but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur (e.g., overwriting previous timestamps), authentication requirements, or rate limits. This minimal information is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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 a single sentence of five words, making it very concise. However, efficiency is undermined by lack of essential detail: it does not explain parameters or usage. It is concise but not effectively structured to convey necessary information.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide significant context. It does not explain return values, parameter formats, or any prerequisites. The description is grossly incomplete for the agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no information about parameters: it does not explain that 'slug' is the recipe identifier, that 'timestamp' must be in date-time format, or that 'accept-language' is optional. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is inadequate.

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 action and resource: 'Update a recipe's last made timestamp'. The verb 'update' and the specific resource 'last made timestamp' are unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like patch_recipes_by_slug, which could update multiple fields. The name itself adds specificity, but the description could be more explicit.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patch_recipes_by_slug or update_recipes. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent without guidance on selecting this tool over similar ones.

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