update_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'refresh its embedding' as a side effect, but does not disclose authentication needs, atomicity, or limitations. The behavioral disclosure is minimal and insufficient for safe invocation.

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 brief but incomplete. It uses 'when needed' redundantly and omits critical parameter and usage details. Conciseness here sacrifices utility, but the structure is front-loaded with the core verb.

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 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not specify that only custom recipes are eligible, what the response contains, or how embedding refresh is triggered. The agent lacks enough information to invoke the tool confidently.

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 adds no information about any of the 16 parameters. Parameter names from the schema convey only basic intent; the description fails to clarify, for instance, that ingredient_names, amounts, and units should be synchronized, or how difficulty is formatted.

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 'patch' to indicate partial update and specifies 'custom recipe', differentiating it from sibling tools like add_recipe and delete_recipe. However, it does not explicitly name siblings or provide distinguishing cues beyond the context from the sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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