set_recipe_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the instructions_json format and auto-splitting behavior in detail, but does not mention if the replacement is atomic, whether previous steps are completely wiped, permissions needed, or side effects like recipe versioning.

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 front-loaded with purpose and uses bullet-like formatting for parameter details. It is efficient with ~60 words, but the formatting explanation could be more structured as a list.

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 no output schema and poor schema coverage, the description covers instructions_json well but lacks description of slug, return value, error cases, or validation rules. It is adequate for a simple tool but incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add value. It extensively documents instructions_json format (strings vs objects, auto-splitting) but completely omits any explanation for the 'slug' parameter, which is required and likely the recipe identifier.

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 replaces a recipe's instruction steps with given lines, using specific verbs ('replace') and resource ('recipe instruction steps'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_recipe_ingredients which deal with ingredients, not instructions.

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 for replacing instructions entirely, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_recipe might also modify instructions). No direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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