Import a recipe from a URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'save it to the library' is consistent with a non-destructive write. It adds detail about what is saved (real photo, ingredients, steps) and that the result is returned, but does not cover failure modes, idempotency, or behavior on unsupported sites beyond 'most cooking sites.'

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 core operation front-loaded in the first sentence and the downstream workflow in the second. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 tool with an output schema and modest parameter count, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the result. It omits details about optional parameters and edge cases, but these are secondary given the optionality and output schema.

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 33%, and the description mainly clarifies url by indicating it should be a cooking-site page. It does not explain the 'favorite' boolean or elaborate on 'tags' beyond the schema's 'Extra tags to add', leaving a gap for those parameters.

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 specific verbs 'Fetch' and 'save' with clear objects: a recipe page URL and the library. It distinguishes this from ballot-related siblings by explicitly noting that the returned recipe_id should be passed to propose_recipes or add_candidates, clarifying this tool is only the import step.

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?

It identifies a clear workflow position: import first, then pass recipe_id to propose_recipes or add_candidates for ballot inclusion. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with alternatives like search_recipes, but the downstream routing provides enough context for when this tool is appropriate.

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