create_recipe_ingredient

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals it is a POST creation endpoint but does not mention side effects, ordering, duplicate handling, permissions, failure modes, or response behavior. For a mutating tool this is a meaningful 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. The endpoint and the two payload alternatives are stated compactly without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Core invocation is covered: the endpoint and accepted payload shapes are clear. But with no output schema, no annotations, and a nested fields object, the description omits the meaning of as_json, return details, and preconditions like the recipe needing to exist. An agent could call it for basic cases but not with full confidence.

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 low (33%), so the description must compensate. It adds valuable OR-logic: ingredient_id with unit+quantity, or total_grams, which goes beyond the schema's flat field list. However, the as_json parameter remains completely undocumented, and the nested field names are already present in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add an ingredient line to a recipe.' This is easily distinguished from siblings like create_recipe (whole recipe creation) and update_recipe_ingredient (editing an existing line). Including the endpoint further removes ambiguity.

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 verb and resource imply the tool's use case: when you need to add a new ingredient line to an existing recipe. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations when this tool should not be used, such as updating an existing line with update_recipe_ingredient. Context is present but exclusions are absent.

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