update_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that 'steps' are a 'full replacement if provided', which is a crucial behavioral detail. However, it lacks other important traits like required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key usage rule. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from guidelines.

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 complexity (10 parameters, nested 'steps' object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the partial update pattern and 'steps' replacement behavior, but lacks details on permissions, response format, or error handling. For a mutation tool with this complexity, it should do more to be fully adequate.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing that all fields are optional except 'id' and that only provided fields are updated. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update recipe metadata and content.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('recipe'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_meal_plan' or 'create_recipe', which would require a 5.

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 provides some usage guidance: 'Only provide fields you want to update. All fields optional except id.' This implies a partial update pattern but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_recipe' or 'update_meal_plan'. It offers basic context but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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