Patch Recipes By Slug Last Made

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only says 'Update' without disclosing partial-update semantics, authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether other recipe fields remain untouched. It gives the agent no more visibility than the tool name already provides.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity comes at the cost of missing useful behavioral and parameter context.

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?

For a simple patch operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not mention side effects, response shape, required permissions, or how this operation relates to other recipe patch tools. The agent is left without enough context to confidently distinguish and safely invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal semantic value by connecting the 'timestamp' parameter to 'last made,' but it does not explain that 'slug' identifies the recipe or what 'accept-language' controls. The parameter meanings are largely left to inference from the schema and tool name.

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 and resource: 'Update a recipe's last made timestamp.' It is not vague or tautological, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'patch_recipes_by_slug' tool beyond the timestamp focus.

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 guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'patch_recipes_by_slug' or 'update_recipes_by_slug.' The intended context is only implied by the tool's name and description, with no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance.

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