skylight_create_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet 'Create a meal recipe' merely restates the operation implied by the tool name. It does not disclose the return value, whether a duplicate summary is rejected, whether meal_category_id must reference an existing category, or any other side effects — a significant gap for a mutating tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 maximally short with the verb front-loaded and no filler, which is structurally clean. But at five words it crosses from conciseness into under-specification for a 4-parameter creation tool, providing no information beyond a restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, no annotations, four parameters, and a cluster of related siblings (plan_meal, add_recipe_to_grocery_list, list_meal_categories, update_recipe), the description covers none of the gaps an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The return behavior and the meaning of half the parameters remain unknown, so this is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 50%, and the tool description adds nothing about parameters. summary ('Recipe title') and meal_category_id ('from list_meal_categories, required') are documented in the schema, but frameId and description are entirely opaque — an agent cannot tell what frameId refers to or what the description field should contain.

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 names a specific verb ('create') and resource ('meal recipe'), so an agent can identify the core operation and distinguish it from recipe siblings like get/update/delete_recipe. However, it does not differentiate from closely related meal tools such as skylight_plan_meal or skylight_add_recipe_to_grocery_list, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 usage context is provided whatsoever — no indication of when to create a recipe versus planning a meal or adding to a grocery list, and no prerequisite mentioned (e.g., calling list_meal_categories first, despite the schema hint). The description does not mislead, but it gives an agent zero guidance on selecting this tool among the many meal/recipe siblings.

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