update_custom_recipe_ingredients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a partial update (preserves other fields), explains the dry_run behavior (validates without patching), and describes the input format expectation (JSON array). It doesn't mention authentication requirements or reversibility, but the core behavioral traits of mutation and validation are well disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. It adds meaningful detail on ingredients format and dry_run behavior without redundancy. Could be slightly tighter but every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, so the description must do heavy lifting. It covers the input format, partial update semantics, and dry_run behavior. With an output schema present, return values are already documented. It's reasonably complete for the tool's complexity, though it could mention when to connect_to_cookidoo first (a prerequisite given the sibling list).

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 must compensate. It explains ingredients_json must be a JSON array and describes its item structure (plain text or INGREDIENT object with VOLUME annotation). It explains dry_run's validation behavior. recipe_id is left to schema semantics, but the other two params are meaningfully documented.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Replace a custom recipe's ingredients.' It clarifies this is a partial update that preserves other fields, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_custom_recipe_steps and upload_custom_recipe. The function purpose is 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?

The description explains it performs a partial update preserving other fields, giving clear context on scope. It explicitly mentions the dry_run validation mode for testing without patching. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool versus other update tools like update_custom_recipe_steps, though the distinction is fairly implicit.

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