Rate a recipe

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

The description adds the per-user context, which is valuable beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling, or authorization requirements, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and immediately follows with a key contextual note. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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, the description covers the main action and the per-user scope. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., recipe must exist) or return values, but given the lack of output schema, this is acceptable. The description is nearly complete for its purpose.

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 67% (rating and recipe have descriptions; is_favorite does not). The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The missing parameter is self-explanatory, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Sets the personal rating of a recipe and/or marks it as a favourite.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like set_recipe_last_made by mentioning the specific behavior, and adds context about ratings being per user, which clarifies scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_recipe_last_made or other recipe manipulation tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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