Create Recipes Create Ai Stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the tool is AI-backed and streams progress via SSE, signaling a long-running, asynchronous operation. However, it does not address auth requirements, AI-provider prerequisites, mid-stream failure behavior, or what the final SSE event returns, leaving significant behavioral unknowns.

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 a single sentence with no filler words; the verb, resource, supported input types, and SSE behavior are all packed in economically. The trailing phrase 'streaming progress via SSE' is slightly awkward in placement but not ambiguous or wasteful.

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?

This is a side-effecting creator with 6 fully undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It omits the SSE event format and final payload, the meaning of three parameters, and any prerequisites or failure behavior, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly or parse its results.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does for half the parameters by clarifying that content can be HTML, JSON, or text and that images and URL are distinct inputs. It says nothing about accept-language, translateLanguage, or createNewOrganizers, so the agent cannot determine their purpose, valid values, or when they should be set.

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 concrete action and resource ('Create a recipe from any combination of content (HTML, JSON, or text), images, and a URL, using AI, streaming progress via SSE'). It enumerates input types and the streaming behavior, which meaningfully differentiates it from siblings like create_recipes_create_ai (no streaming) and create_recipes_create_html_or_json_stream (no images/URL), but it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 only implies usage: this is the tool for AI-driven recipe creation from mixed input sources with SSE progress reporting. It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, which matters given the large family of similar siblings (create_recipes_create_ai, create_recipes_create_html_or_json_stream, create_recipes_create_url_stream); an agent must infer when streaming is preferred over non-streaming variants.

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