brewfather_apply_recipe_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the write side effect ('writes live data'), a failure mode (rejection if recipe changed), and a safety gate (explicit user confirmation). It does not mention success return format, but with no output schema and a single param, this is reasonably transparent for a mutation.

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?

Three concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides behavioral context and a failure condition, the third gives an explicit usage prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential action, prerequisites, and a failure mode. However, it omits where the confirmationToken comes from (likely the preview response) and what constitutes a successful apply. This leaves an agent slightly uncertain about the full call flow, though the sibling tools could fill in the gap.

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?

There is 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains what 'confirmationToken' is or where it originates. It implies it comes from a prior preview but does not explicitly state that. The only schema metadata is minLength, which is insufficient for an agent to know how to obtain or use the token correctly.

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: 'Apply a previously previewed recipe update' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like preview_recipe_update by implying this is the final write step, and from apply_recipe_create by specifying 'update'. The phrasing 'writes live Brewfather data' reinforces the mutation nature.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Only call after explicit user confirmation' and a critical condition: 'server rejects if recipe changed after preview'. This implies the agent should have previewed first and should not call prematurely. It does not explicitly contrast with apply_recipe_create, but the name and sibling context make the distinction clear.

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