create_recipe_from_zip

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 delivers almost nothing beyond 'creates a recipe'. It does not say whether this mutation is idempotent, what happens on a malformed archive, whether the recipe is merged or duplicated, or what auth/permissions are needed. The method/path is disclosed but that is the only behavioral signal.

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 header is front-loaded and readable, but the trailing 'Keywords:' list is pure filler that repeats the tool name in multiple near-synonymous forms. That block consumes roughly half the text and earns nothing for an agent trying to decide whether to call the tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify auth needs, expected archive contents, and the resulting behavior. It instead provides retrieval keywords, leaving the agent without enough context to distinguish this from the other recipe-creation siblings.

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% and the single 'archive' parameter is already documented in the schema as a file field requiring an absolute local path. The description adds no syntax, format, or size constraints on top of this, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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: it creates a recipe from a zip archive, and the endpoint path [POST /api/recipes/create/zip] reinforces that. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling creators like create_recipe_from_html_or_json and create_recipe_from_image by naming the zip/archive input, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. The description never says when to prefer this over create_recipe_from_html_or_json, create_recipe_from_image, or recipe_crud_create_one, nor any prerequisite (e.g., archive must exist locally, auth required). The keyword list ('add recipe, new recipe...') is retrieval bait, not usage guidance.

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