parse_recipe_url

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose that it is a write operation that loads data into the database and that scraping 'attempts' to succeed, hinting at a failure mode. But it omits auth requirements, side effects on tags/categories, idempotency on repeat calls, and what happens on a partial scrape.

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 a single sentence, but it is padded with 'Recipe: CRUD. Create recipe.', an endpoint tag, and a long keyword-stuffing footer that adds no information. The description is not front-loaded and wastes significant space on SEO terms.

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 description coverage, the description should compensate more than it does. It does not explain the returned recipe, the tag/category creation behavior implied by the boolean flags, or error behavior on unscrapable URLs.

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 (nested) parameter carries three fields (url, includeTags, includeCategories). The description only loosely implies a URL input and never explains what includeTags or includeCategories toggle, leaving two of three fields undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 core sentence states a specific verb+resource combination: it takes a URL, scrapes recipe data, and loads it into the database, which is far more informative than the bare name. However, the 'Recipe: CRUD. Create recipe.' framing is generic and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like test_parse_recipe_url, parse_recipe_url_bulk, or create_recipe_from_html_or_json, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus test_parse_recipe_url (dry run), parse_recipe_url_bulk, or create_recipe_from_html_or_json. A user with a single URL gets no routing guidance, and no prerequisites (e.g., authentication) are mentioned.

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