create_recipe_shortcut

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a critical non-obvious behavior: label settings are not inherited, so serving size, package yield, and tags come back unset. It also notes the POST endpoint and the parallel-list constraint. It does not describe error behavior or authentication, but the material caveats are covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then the endpoint, then usage context, then parameter constraints, then the critical caveat and alternative. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to extract the key facts quickly.

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?

The definition is quite complete for a complex creation tool: it explains the endpoint, required nested fields, constraints, and the key behavioral caveat about label settings. However, there is no output schema and the response shape is not described, so the agent still lacks full information about what the tool returns.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that ingredient_ids and ingredient_weights are required, must be parallel lists of equal length, use grams, and may be arrays or comma-separated strings. The as_json parameter is left undocumented, but it is a simple boolean and the more complex fields parameter is well explained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a complete recipe with its ingredients in one request.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_recipe and create_recipe_ingredient by emphasizing the combined recipe-plus-ingredients behavior and the shortcut endpoint.

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?

It explicitly positions this as 'the fastest path for building many recipes' and provides an alternative: 'use scale_recipe to clone a configured template when label settings matter.' This gives the agent a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule with a named sibling alternative.

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