set_recipe_rating

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses parameter behavior but does not state if the operation is idempotent, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. More detail on overall effect would improve transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences followed by terse parameter explanations. Front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

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?

The description is complete for a simple setter tool given no output schema; it covers parameters well. However, it lacks mention of idempotency or return value, which would round out completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds rich semantics for both optional parameters: rating range with decimals and -1 semantics, is_favorite clear mapping. This substantially supplements the input schema.

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 sets the calling user's rating and/or favorite flag for a recipe, with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from similar tools like update_recipe or set_recipe_ingredients.

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 explains parameter values explicitly (rating 0-5, -1 unchanged; is_favorite 0/1, -1 unchanged), but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as update_recipe for broader updates.

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