create_recipe_from_image

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that OpenAI performs the extraction, implying external processing, but says nothing about auth requirements, failure/error behavior, cost, or what happens to the uploaded image. This is thin for a mutation tool.

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 core sentence is efficient, but the 'Create image.' fragment and a long trailing keyword dump (recipe crud, recipes, create, add, new, make, write, post, mealie) are low-value filler that dilute the front-loaded message.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema write tool that ingests uploaded files, the description omits auth/permission context, supported image types, failure modes, and return behavior. It covers the headline purpose but not enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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 50%; the description adds meaning for translateLanguage ('a language for it to translate the recipe to'), clarifying intent beyond the bare field name. The images upload parameter's semantics (absolute local paths) are only in the schema, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create a recipe from an image using OpenAI') that clearly distinguishes it from other ingestion siblings like create_recipe_from_html_or_json or parse_recipe_url. The noise fragment 'Create image.' blurs it slightly, and no sibling is named explicitly, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 notes that a translation language can optionally be supplied, which is usage-adjacent, but never says when to choose this tool over create_recipe_from_html_or_json, create_recipe_from_zip, or parse_recipe_url. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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