Create Recipes Create Html Or Json

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says the input is parsed. It does not disclose that this creates a persistent recipe, whether it is synchronous, what authentication or error behavior exists, or what happens after parsing. The 'like a URL' analogy is suggestive, not informative.

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 and front-loads the core input type. However, the 'like a URL' clause is ambiguous and compresses rather than clarifies the intended behavior.

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 creation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema-description coverage, this is too thin. The presence of an output schema removes some need to describe return values, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of differentiation from sibling creation tools leave an agent without enough context to call it confidently.

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 clarifies that the required `data` parameter accepts raw HTML or a schema.org/Recipe JSON string, but it says nothing about `url`, `includeTags`, `accept-language`, or `includeCategories`. Four of five parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 names a concrete action: it takes raw HTML or a schema.org/Recipe JSON string and parses it to create a recipe. It is more informative than the title alone, though the phrase 'parses it like a URL' is somewhat vague and does not explicitly say what the result is.

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 gives a sense of when to use the tool (when you have raw HTML or Recipe JSON), but it provides no exclusions or comparison with sibling tools like create_recipes_create_url, create_recipes_create_html_or_json_stream, or create_recipes_create_ai. An agent cannot tell whether to choose this over the stream variant or when a URL import would be more appropriate.

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