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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: the original recipe is not changed, costs and tags carry over, per-serving nutrition stays the same, and scaling down cannot take packages below 1. It also explains default naming, which helps the agent predict the created resource.

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 'WRITE', then covers scaling semantics, preservation rules, and naming defaults in a single dense paragraph. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation context.

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 write tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the key creation, scaling, and preservation behavior. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema exists and the remaining gap is minor.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics for scale_amount, including '1 = plain copy' and package-floor behavior, plus the default naming rule for name.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'create a NEW recipe as a copy of an existing one', with scaling behavior clearly stated. It distinguishes this from ordinary recipe creation by emphasizing copying and multiplying quantities/yield.

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?

It clearly explains the scaling use case, including '1 = plain copy' and the behavior when scaling down. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as recipal_create_recipe, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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