cyberchef_recipe_update

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the generic word 'Update.' It does not disclose whether this is a partial update (only provided fields change) or a full replacement, what data may be overwritten, or any side effects. With a destructive tool and no additional behavioral disclosure, the description underperforms.

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 short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and nested objects. It is concise without being informative. Other similarly short descriptions that listed updatable fields have been graded slightly higher because they front-load useful content.

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 the tool has six parameters, nested objects, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain update semantics, which fields can change, whether partial updates are supported, or anything about expected behavior after invocation. An agent would need to rely entirely on the schema and annotations.

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 83%, and the schema already documents parameters such as id, name, tags, metadata, operations, and description. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the high schema coverage means the baseline applies. No compensation is needed, though the description could have noted that only supplied optional fields are updated.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing recipe.' It clearly identifies the tool as a modification operation on a recipe, and 'existing' subtly distinguishes it from create and delete siblings. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state the scope of what can be updated, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like cyberchef_recipe_create, cyberchef_recipe_delete, or cyberchef_recipe_get. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about why an agent would choose this update tool over related recipe operations.

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