create_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates a recipe, which is already obvious from the name. It does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, error conditions, or what happens on success, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise, with two sentences and no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the most critical parameter details. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool.

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 complexity (27 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values, any constraints beyond title, or relationships between fields. An agent would need to infer most behavior from the schema alone, which is insufficient due to low coverage.

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 coverage is only 19%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining that only title is required and clarifying the ingredients array structure. However, it does not elaborate on the other 25 parameters (e.g., fat, url, draft), leaving most parameters unexplained. The description helps for two fields but fails to cover the rest.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new recipe.' It differentiates from siblings by using the verb 'create' rather than 'update' or 'get', and adds specific details about required title and ingredient structure, making it unambiguous.

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 implies usage by stating it creates a new recipe, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_recipe or list_recipes. No exclusions or conditions are given, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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