log_cooking_event

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 almost nothing: 'Registra' implies an additive write, but there is no statement on permissions, whether entries are editable/removable, or whether repeated calls duplicate. No output schema explanation is needed, but for an unannotated mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

One tight sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and the bilingual gloss aiding disambiguation; no filler. Its brevity tips into under-specification rather than being wasteful.

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 an unannotated write tool with two required, undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent guessing at the semantics of 'subject' and at the mutation's side effects. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input side is badly under-covered.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It implies 'slug' identifies the recipe, but 'subject' — a required parameter — is never explained (event type? title?), nor is the optional 'message' differentiated from it.

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 ('Registra') and resource ('un evento en el timeline de una receta'), with the parenthetical English gloss clarifying 'cooking log / historial'. An agent can tell it creates a log entry on a recipe timeline, though it never distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, add_recipe_comment, which also attaches text to a recipe.

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 exclusions, and no mention of the plausible alternative (add_recipe_comment) for attaching text to a recipe. The agent must infer that this is for cooking-history entries rather than comments purely from the noun 'timeline'.

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