rate_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the rating scale and optional comment but lacks details on permissions, whether ratings are editable, rate limits, or what happens upon submission. This is a mutation tool with incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key details (scale, optional review) without any wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool operates in practice.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like recipe_id, rating, and comment. The description adds minimal value by implying the rating is for cooked recipes but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema's technical details.

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 ('Rate a HelloFresh recipe you've cooked') and the resource ('recipe'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_recipe_details or modify_subscription by focusing on user feedback rather than retrieval or configuration.

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 implies usage context ('you've cooked') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_recipe_details for information or update_preferences for broader settings. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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