save_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Save' and 'saves it', which implies a write operation but does not explain if it updates existing recipes, what happens on duplicates, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap 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 description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, the second clause ('saves it to your Mealie instance') repeats information from the first clause ('Save a recipe to Mealie'), making it slightly redundant. It is still concise and well-structured, just with minor redundancy.

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?

The tool has a complex nested schema with many fields, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers only the basic action and format, but does not explain return behavior, error handling, or idempotency. Given the rich schema, the description is minimally viable but lacks important context for a mutation operation.

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%, so the schema fully documents the 'recipe' parameter and all its nested properties. The description only restates the schema's top-level comment ('Accepts a recipe in schema.org/Recipe format'), adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save'), identifies the resource ('a recipe to Mealie'), and clearly states the input format ('schema.org/Recipe format'). It fully distinguishes the tool's function even without sibling tools, as it names the destination system (Mealie) and the action.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when you have a recipe object in schema.org format, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of alternatives comparison is less critical, but it falls short of explicit usage instructions.

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