update_recipe

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses crucial behavior: only passed fields change, serving type is fixed, passing ingredients replaces the entire list, and cooked_grams requires ingredients because nutrition is recomputed. This is substantial, actionable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 the core purpose, then uses compact paragraphs for behavioral nuances and a clear Args list for parameters. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of schema-only information or filler.

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 the output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers all required behavioral and parameter-level context: partial updates, ingredient replacement, serving-type immutability, and the cooked_grams dependency. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is left unexplained.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters in the Args block. It adds meaning beyond the schema, including the nested ingredient object shape, the full-replacement semantics, and the cooked_grams constraint.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit one of your recipes in place, keeping its diary entries.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from create_recipe, delete/recreate workflows, and other food-related update tools by naming the resource and the preservation effect.

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 gives clear context for use: editing an existing recipe while preserving diary entries, as opposed to creating a new one. It also notes that cooked_grams applies only to weight-based recipes, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_recipe or update_custom_food or state when not to use them.

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