recipe_comments_create_one

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire disclosure burden, and it delivers almost nothing beyond the HTTP verb and path. It does not say whether the comment is attributed to the authenticated user, what permissions are required, what happens on a bad recipeId, or what the response contains — all critical 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 first two clauses are useful and front-loaded, but the bulk of the description is a comma-separated keyword dump (aliases, 'mealie', 'post') that adds no actionable meaning and dilutes the signal. Roughly 80% of the text is SEO filler.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should explain auth expectations, side effects, and required inputs. Instead it supplies only an endpoint and keyword aliases, leaving the agent under-informed before an irreversible write.

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 'body' parameter is a nested object requiring recipeId (uuid4) and text. The description adds no information about either field — no format hint for recipeId, no length/content constraints for text — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though the schema names are at least self-descriptive.

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 comment') and names the endpoint (POST /api/comments), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from recipe_comments_update_one, recipe_comments_delete_one, or recipe_comments_get_one, leaving that separation to the tool name alone.

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, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. authentication, comment ownership), and no routing to alternatives such as recipe_comments_update_one for editing an existing comment. The remaining text is keyword-alias stuffing rather than guidance.

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