Import recipe bundle

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

Annotations indicate destructive hints (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description's 'Import' verb aligns. However, the description does not elaborate on what gets modified (e.g., overwriting existing recipes) or any prerequisites. With annotations present, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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 that is front-loaded and concise, but it omits necessary details for effective tool use. It achieves brevity at the cost of completeness, which is acceptable only if the tool is trivial, which it is not given three parameters and no schema descriptions.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only partly cover behavior, the description is insufficient. It does not address the overwrite parameter, return type, error conditions, or side effects beyond what annotations imply. The agent lacks key information to invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the description does not explain any parameter. The agent must infer from parameter names alone (bundle_file, out_dir, overwrite). For a tool with 0% coverage, the description should compensate but completely fails to do so.

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 ('Import') and identifies the resource ('recipes from a portable JSON bundle') and target ('into a recipe directory'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'import_recipe_from_url' or 'import_setlist' which have different sources or formats.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for bulk import from a bundle file, nor does it exclude other import methods like URL or individual recipe import.

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