add_recipe_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say that this is a mutating write, whether it requires authentication or ownership, whether the comment is publicly visible, or whether duplicate comments are allowed. The vague '(rating, notas, feedback)' hint is not a behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, and the action plus target are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved partly by omitting required information.

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?

This is a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage on two required parameters. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the missing slug provenance and write-side effects leave the definition inadequate for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters and does not: 'slug' is never identified as the recipe identifier or told where to obtain it, and 'text' is not described as free-form comment content or given format/length constraints. The parenthetical gestures at content types but provides no usable semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Anade un comentario a una receta') and names the platform (Mealie), so the agent knows this creates a recipe comment rather than touching meal plans or shopping lists. Sibling differentiation comes from the resource noun alone; the parenthetical '(rating, notas, feedback)' muddies rather than sharpens the purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of update_recipe or tag_recipe, and no prerequisites such as the recipe needing to exist or the slug needing to come from search_recipes/get_recipe. The agent must infer all call conditions.

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