Create Recipes By Slug Assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Upload a file to store as a recipe asset.' It does not mention whether existing assets are overwritten, whether the file is validated, what permissions are required, or whether the operation is idempotent. The persistence implication is present but shallow.

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 one short sentence with the primary verb and object front-loaded, containing no filler or redundant phrasing. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail.

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 five required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, this description is materially incomplete. It does not clarify required fields, accepted file types, ownership semantics, or how this asset relates to a specific recipe. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but does not address the missing input and behavioral 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'a file,' offering little beyond the schema's field names. Required parameters such as 'slug', 'name', 'icon', and 'extension' are not explained, leaving their roles and formatting unclear. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 states a clear action ('Upload a file') and a clear object ('store as a recipe asset'), so an agent can infer the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_recipes_by_slug_image or media asset retrieval endpoints, but the 'asset' phrasing provides enough differentiation from image-specific operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as uploading a recipe image or retrieving an existing asset. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the name and sibling list. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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