Create Recipes By Slug Assets Url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is a mutating server-side fetch (SSRF concerns), what image formats or size limits apply, permission requirements, or whether existing assets are replaced. 'Store it as a recipe asset' is the only behavioral hint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; efficient and easy to parse. It is short rather than padded, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the 5-parameter surface is largely undocumented and there is no usage, permission, or behavior context. For a mutating asset-creation endpoint this leaves substantial gaps.

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 0% across 5 parameters. The description implicitly covers url and slug, but says nothing about includeTags, includeCategories, or accept-language, which are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 gives a specific verb (download + store) and resource (recipe asset) that clearly matches the tool name. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings like create_recipes_by_slug_assets (a likely multipart upload variant) or create_recipes_by_slug_image, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling asset/image tools, nor any precondition (e.g. recipe must exist, URL must be publicly reachable). The agent gets a bare capability statement with no routing guidance.

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