Set last made

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false), non-idempotent (idempotentHint false), and not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds context about the effect (shows on recipe and sorts by it), which is useful. It does not mention whether the timestamp is overwritten or whether there are prerequisites, but given the simple nature and annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds relevant behavioral context about how the value is used. Every word earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with a well-documented schema and annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose and effect, and the schema covers parameters and output. No additional context (like prerequisites or error handling) is necessary for an agent to use it correctly, though mentioning that the recipe must already exist could be an improvement. Overall, it's complete enough.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (recipe and timestamp) fully documented in the input schema, including formats and examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('records when a recipe was last cooked') and the resource (recipe), and explains the downstream effect (displayed on recipe and used for sorting). This distinguishes it from sibling mutations like set_recipe_rating or add_recipe_comment, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use this tool (to record a last-cooked timestamp) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't say 'use this instead of X when...' but the purpose is obvious enough for an agent to infer. However, without explicit guidance, there's some ambiguity about when not to use it, e.g., for rating or comments.

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