weekplan_add_recipe

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the weight and does add useful behavior: missing ingredients are created automatically, and the Dutch-language constraint is stated. It does not disclose authorization needs, validation failure behavior, or what happens on partial update.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each carrying a distinct point: what it does, the ingredient structure, and the auto-creation/language rules. No filler, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

Adequate for a 3-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and an idempotency annotation. However, with no output schema and no annotation for destructive behavior, the description leaves gaps around failure modes and whether existing recipe data is overwritten versus merged.

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 100%, so the schema already defines name, ingredients, and steps with nested ingredient fields. The description adds the ingredient name/quantity/unit structure and the language requirement, but no format or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add or update a recipe') and clarifies scope by naming the payload components (ingredients list, cooking steps). It does not explicitly differentiate from the closest sibling weekplan_edit_recipe, so routing between 'add' and 'edit' remains slightly ambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the payload it accepts, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus weekplan_edit_recipe, which sounds like the natural alternative for updating. The auto-creation of missing ingredients is the only real routing cue offered.

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