upload_recipe_asset

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 discloses very little: it does not state permission/auth requirements, that this creates a new stored file, or what happens on slug mismatch. The useful note about file paths ('File fields (file) must be absolute paths to local files to upload') lives in the schema, not the description.

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 single explanatory sentence is appropriately front-loaded, but the large trailing keyword dump ('upload_recipe_asset, upload recipe asset, ... mealie') is pure padding that adds no decision-relevant content.

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 endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented, the description is too thin. It should at least describe auth expectations and the meaning of the required asset metadata fields.

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 50% and the description adds nothing about the required body fields name, icon, and extension, which are undocumented in both places. It only implies a file is uploaded, leaving the semantics of the other parameters unexplained.

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 'Upload a file to store as a recipe asset' gives a specific verb (upload) and resource (recipe asset), and the POST path plus 'Recipe: CRUD' orient it within the API. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_recipe_asset or update_recipe_image, but the action is unambiguous.

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 alternatives such as create_recipe_from_image or update_recipe_image. The trailing keyword list ('create asset, add asset, new asset') only restates synonyms and provides no conditional guidance.

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