bar_update_cocktail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait: unspecified fields are left unchanged (patch semantics). It omits permissions/authorization, what happens if the id does not exist, and side effects on nested data such as ingredients or parent_cocktail_id, which is thin for a 12-parameter 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for a 12-parameter mutation with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is insufficient: it does not clarify whether 'ingredients' replaces or merges existing data, what 'id' expects, or failure behavior.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. Nested structures like 'ingredients' (free-form objects) and fields such as 'parent_cocktail_id' or 'cocktail_method_id' get no explanation of semantics or expected values, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing cocktail'), and the word 'existing' implicitly separates it from bar_create_cocktail and bar_delete_cocktail. It is clear but does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from those siblings.

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?

'Only provide fields you want to change' gives practical guidance on how to invoke it (partial update). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of parallel tools like bar_create_cocktail or bar_update_ingredient.

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