update_recipe

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but fails to. It does not clarify whether this is a partial update or a full replacement of the recipe. The 'data' parameter is an object with additionalProperties: true, which could accept arbitrary fields, but there is no warning about validation or unintended side effects. No mention of authorization or rate limits.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is not verbose, but the information is minimal. A slightly more structured approach with explicit parameter explanations would improve clarity without adding length.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not reference it or explain what is returned. With sibling tools available, no guidance on dependencies (e.g., fetching the current recipe before update) is provided. The description is incomplete for a mutation tool with arbitrary fields and no annotations.

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 the description should compensate. It provides examples of fields for the 'data' parameter (e.g., description, recipeYield), which adds some meaning. However, it does not explain the 'slug' parameter (likely a recipe identifier) or clarify that 'data' is a partial object. The description adds limited value beyond the raw 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's purpose: 'Update a recipe.' It provides concrete examples of updateable fields (description, recipeYield, recipeIngredient, recipeInstructions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_recipe, get_recipe, and delete_recipe. The verb 'update' combined with the resource 'recipe' makes the action unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that the recipe slug must exist or how to obtain it (e.g., from list_recipes). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context without support.

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