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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write semantics, and the idempotencyKey parameter description covers replay safety. The description's only added behavioral context is the word 'private' (visibility scoping), and it says nothing about what happens on a duplicate key or how the recipe is scoped to the household.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the usage trigger front-loaded before the sibling redirect. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and full schema coverage removes the parameter-documentation burden. What remains thin is mutation behavior — visibility scope, household-wide effect, and duplicate-key outcome — which matters for a 10-parameter write tool.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters including the required idempotencyKey are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The phrase 'with a current version' hints at entity versioning that no parameter in this schema exposes, but it does not clarify any of this tool's own inputs.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'save a private structured recipe'. It also differentiates from the sibling update_recipe, so an agent can choose between create and update without inspecting either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use trigger ('use this when you need to save...') paired with the named alternative ('use update_recipe with a current version for changes'). The create-vs-update decision is fully routed.

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