recipal_create_subrecipeWRITE: turn a recipe into an ingredient (a subrecipe) with its nutrition, costing and ingredient list, so it can be used inside other recipes. Later changes to the recipe flow through to the ingredient. Fails if the recipe is empty. Returns the new ingredient. POST /recipes/{id}/create_subrecipe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recipe_id | Yes | Recipe to turn into a subrecipe. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover write/non-idempotent/destructive, and the description adds real value: the live reference semantics ('later changes to the recipe flow through to the ingredient'), the empty-recipe failure mode, and the POST path. It does not explain what the destructiveHint refers to (what gets removed or unlinked), leaving one gap.
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 tight sentences plus an endpoint, front-loaded with a WRITE: marker so the operation type is seen first. Every clause carries information: purpose, propagation behavior, failure condition, return value.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully says it returns the new ingredient, and it covers preconditions and side effects. What is missing is a clarification of the destructive annotation's implication and any indication of what the returned ingredient contains.
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% with a single, self-explanatory recipe_id, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what is in the schema, which is the baseline case.
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 plus the mechanism: convert a recipe into an ingredient that carries nutrition, costing and ingredient list. The 'subrecipe' framing and live-link behavior make it distinguishable from recipal_create_ingredient, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 purpose clause ('so it can be used inside other recipes') implies the use case, and the precondition 'Fails if the recipe is empty' is stated. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over create_ingredient or create_recipe_from_ingredients.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.