bulk_export_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds almost nothing: it discloses only the HTTP method (POST) via the route. It does not say whether this triggers a background report/job, whether the export is asynchronous, what permissions are needed, or how the result is delivered.

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 useful content is one sentence; the remainder is redundant keyword padding that repeats the tool name and enumerates near-synonyms ('bulk export recipes, export recipe, create recipe, add recipe...'). This bloats the definition and injects noise rather than front-loaded meaning.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain the parameter contract and what the export returns (e.g., a downloadable report). It covers the endpoint only, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly or predict the outcome.

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 single required parameter is a nested object (body with recipes[] and an exportType enum). The description says nothing about supplying a recipe list or the accepted export format, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap; only the name loosely implies a recipe list.

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 does identify a verb+resource ('Export recipe') and give the POST endpoint, so the basic action is discernible. However, the trailing keyword list mixes in contradictory verbs — 'create recipe, add recipe, new recipe, make recipe, write recipe' — which muddies whether this tool exports or creates. It also gives no differentiation from siblings such as purge_export_data or create_recipe_from_html_or_json.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Recipe: Bulk Actions' hints at a bulk context but never says when bulk export is appropriate or what distinguishes it from single-recipe retrieval or purge_export_data.

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