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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a meaningful trait the schema cannot: a cost of 1 credit per call. However it never states that this is a write/mutation, whether it overwrites an existing recipe, or what happens to a previously imported recipe with the same name.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action first and the review hint and cost disclosure trailing. Every sentence adds something the structured fields do not carry.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema, purpose, cost, and review sequencing are covered. Gaps remain around the rename parameter and the result of a successful import, which an agent invoking this tool would benefit from knowing.

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 only maps the 'share code' concept to the required 'code' parameter. The optional 'rename' parameter, including its naming constraints inherited only from a regex pattern, is never explained in prose.

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 (add/import) and a precise resource (a recipe someone shared with you) plus the mechanism (share code). It implicitly separates itself from recipe_save by emphasizing 'someone shared with you', though it never names recipe_save or recipe_publish directly.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing instruction: review with recipe_list before running it, which names a real sibling and the condition for using it. It stops short of saying when to pick import over recipe_save or what to do if the share code is invalid.

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