add_planner_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return value ('Returns the newly created event (id, date, section, servings, ...)'), which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it omits any mention of mutation side effects, idempotency, or failure behavior for a creation tool.

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 with the primary action front-loaded and the return-value disclosure following. No wasted words, though the return-value detail could arguably have been folded into the schema.

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 a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and only 25% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete: it gives the return shape, which is helpful. But recipe_id semantics are left undocumented, and no guidance distinguishes this from the other add_planner_* siblings.

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 25% (only frozen_id has a description). The description names date, section, and servings in the return value but does not explain the semantics of recipe_id, which is required and undocumented. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('add') and resource ('a recipe to a meal slot on the planner'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tools add_planner_ingredient, add_planner_note, and add_leftover_meal, but naming 'recipe' as the payload does implicitly distinguish it.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over its close siblings (add_planner_ingredient, add_leftover_meal) or when frozen_id should be used instead of recipe_id. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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