update_recipes_by_slug_imageUpdate a recipe's image by providing its slug, new image data, and file extension. Replace existing recipe visuals directly through the API.
Update Recipe Image
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| image | Yes | ||
| extension | Yes | ||
| accept-language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior; it only says 'Update Recipe Image'. It does not state whether the existing image is replaced, whether the binary must be encoded, whether the slug must already exist, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a mutating upload endpoint.
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?
Three words are economical, but the text is under-specified rather than concise in the useful sense. It front-loads nothing beyond the bare action and omits necessary behavioral and usage 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?
Despite an output schema, the description lacks enough context for a mutating image-upload tool with four parameters and no annotations. An agent cannot infer overwrite semantics, required encoding, or when this tool is appropriate relative to create/delete image siblings. This is minimally viable but clearly incomplete.
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%, yet the description names no parameter except the implicit image. It does not clarify how slug identifies the recipe, the meaning of extension, the format of the image payload, or the role of accept-language. The description therefore adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the property names.
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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('Recipe Image'), so an agent knows it changes a recipe's image. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_recipes_by_slug_image or update_recipes_by_slug, but the core purpose is not tautological and is identifiable.
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 sentence explains when to use this tool instead of create_recipes_by_slug_image, delete_recipes_by_slug_image, or update_recipes_by_slug. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing. This leaves usage entirely to inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.