create_recipes_create_ai

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 mentions 'using AI' implying a generative process and optional translation, but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new recipe immediately, requires AI provider configuration, or makes network requests). The description adds some context but lacks depth on operational behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: one sentence states the primary action and inputs, a second adds the optional translation feature. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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?

With six optional parameters, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It covers the main input types and translation but leaves out critical details like the accept-language header, the createNewOrganizers boolean, and any prerequisites (e.g., AI provider setup). The presence of an output schema helps, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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%, meaning the description does not name or explain the six parameters. It indirectly refers to 'content (HTML, JSON, or text), images, and a URL', which maps to content, images, and url, and 'language' for translateLanguage, but it omits accept-language and createNewOrganizers entirely. The explanation is partial and does not compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 tool's function: create a recipe using AI from a combination of content types (HTML, JSON, text), images, and/or a URL. It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('recipe'), and the 'any combination' phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_recipes_create_url or create_recipes_create_html_or_json.

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 it is for combinations of sources but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose this tool over others (e.g., 'use create_recipes_create_url for URL only'). The context of multiple input types suggests a when-to-use scenario, but there is no explicit guidance or exclusions.

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