Update Custom Recipe Steps

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the operation replaces rather than appends, that the device comes from the recipe and modes from Cookidoo, and that verbatim ingredient lines become links. It stops short of stating reversibility or what happens on malformed notation, which would matter for a destructive replace.

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?

Front-loads the action, then scope, then prerequisites, then formatting rules — a sensible order. The notation examples add real value, but the parenthetical sibling references and repetition of mode names make it slightly longer than necessary.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly — auth prerequisite, replace-vs-merge semantics, required notation format. With an output schema present, return values need not be described, so the only remaining gap is failure/reversibility 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by specifying the Cookidoo notation required inside the steps string (with concrete examples) and explaining that ingredient lines present verbatim in a step get linked. It does not explicitly tie the optional ingredients parameter to its 'empty means load current from Cookidoo' fallback, though the schema does.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Replace the steps of an existing custom recipe, including Thermomix settings and ingredient links.' That clearly separates it from upload_custom_recipe (create) and generate_recipe_structure (build a skeleton).

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 names the situation ('fix or add Thermomix settings... on a recipe that was already uploaded'), the scope exclusion ('Only the steps are changed; ingredients, times and hints stay as they are'), and the prerequisite ('You must be connected first using connect_to_cookidoo'). It also routes to generate_recipe_structure and get_thermomix_modes for notation forms.

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