create_subrecipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the mutation effect ('Flag an existing recipe as a subrecipe') and the return behavior ('Returns the new ingredient record — capture its ingredient_id'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, idempotency, or potential side effects on the original recipe record.

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?

Two sentences carry the core purpose, the endpoint, the return value, and actionable follow-up instructions. There is no filler, and the most important behavior is front-loaded.

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 description gives the essential flow for the main use case and names the output field to capture. But because there is no output schema and no annotation context, the vague optional fields object and the unexplained as_json flag leave an agent with uncertainty about edge cases and response formatting.

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?

The endpoint string ('POST /recipes/{id}/create_subrecipe') and the phrase 'existing recipe' imply that recipe_id is the ID of an existing recipe. The schema already documents fields as optional attributes. However, as_json is not explained anywhere, and the description does not add detail about what kinds of fields are accepted despite the schema coverage being only 33%.

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 action ('Flag an existing recipe as a subrecipe') and explains the consequence ('so it becomes usable as an ingredient in other recipes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_recipe or create_recipe_ingredient, and the endpoint reference reinforces what resource is affected.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when an existing recipe should be promoted to a subrecipe/ingredient. It also tells the agent what to do with the result, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as bulk_create_subrecipes or explain when not to use this tool.

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