upload_recipe_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the image is uploaded as base64, with no mention of side effects (e.g., replacing an existing image), authentication requirements, file size limits, or error handling. This is minimal beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and the required format, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention response behavior, whether the upload replaces existing images, or any constraints. The agent is left without critical operational context.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all three fields. The description adds no extra meaning beyond saying the image is base64-encoded, which duplicates the schema. It does not clarify how slug relates to the recipe or how fileName is used.

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 action ('upload') and the resource ('an image for a recipe'), using specific language that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_recipe or update_recipe. It also specifies the input format (base64), making the purpose 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 use when uploading an image for a recipe but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance on when this tool is the right choice.

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