import_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it warns that video previews can download media and incur LLM costs, and that image creation has no read-only preview (a genuine side-effect warning). It doesn't state what an import actually creates, whether it's reversible, or what is returned, so the burden from missing annotations isn't fully met.

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?

Three short, factual sentences with the cost/side-effect caveats front-loaded after the core purpose. No filler, though it could be tighter by pairing caveats with the parameters they apply to.

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 cost-incurring import with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the major risks (LLM cost, no image preview, unsupported local paths) but leaves parameter meanings and the result of a real import undocumented, so an agent still lacks enough to call it precisely.

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?

Six parameters at 0% schema coverage means the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does not. It only implicitly gestures at dry_run ('preview' vs 'import'), kind ('video'/'image'), and source ('local media paths unsupported'); max_recipes, min_confidence, and language are entirely 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?

States a specific verb ('import') and resource ('recipes'), plus the preview capability. It's distinguishable from create_recipe by implying ingestion from an external source, but it never names the adjacent siblings (create_recipe, add_recipe_comment) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'Preview or import' plus the note that image creation has no read-only preview implies the when-to-use context (safely preview video, beware image). However there is no explicit guidance on choosing this over create_recipe, nor on defaults like dry_run=true, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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