recipe_mutate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions re-normalization and returning a new hash but does not specify whether patches are applied in-place, require specific permissions, or are reversible. The mutation aspect is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 with key elements (apply, re-normalize, return hash). It is front-loaded and concise, though it could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without becoming verbose.

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 the complexity of having two params, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return value (beyond 'new hash'), possible errors, side effects, or the effect on the original recipe. The existence of an output schema is mentioned but not leveraged.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It hints at patches being [{param_path, value}] but does not clarify the 'recipe' parameter structure or the exact format of patches. No further details are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 ('Apply patches'), the resource ('recipe'), and mentions re-normalization and return of a new hash. It distinguishes from siblings like recipe_read and recipe_write by specifying the patch-and-normalize workflow.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recipe_write or recipe_normalize. The description does not provide context for appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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