Create Recipes Create Html Or Json Stream

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose SSE streaming, but it fails to state whether a recipe is actually created or persisted, what side effects occur, what the SSE stream contains, or how the agent should consume the result. This is a significant transparency gap for a create-style tool.

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. It front-loads the input type and immediately states the streaming behavior, earning its length.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers the core input and streaming. It lacks essential context about optional parameters, the creation side effect, return/stream format, and how this relates to the non-streaming sibling `create_recipes_create_html_or_json`.

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 only clarifies that `data` is raw HTML or a schema.org/Recipe JSON string, and says nothing about `url`, `includeTags`, `accept-language`, or `includeCategories`. Four of five parameters remain effectively unexplained.

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 specific action: taking raw HTML or a schema.org/Recipe JSON string and parsing it with SSE progress streaming. This distinguishes it from URL-based or non-streaming siblings, though it never explicitly says the tool creates/saves a recipe, relying on the tool name to imply that outcome.

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 input context is clear: use this when you have raw HTML or a schema.org/Recipe JSON string rather than a URL, and want streaming progress. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'parses it like a URL' phrasing implies the URL-streaming sibling exists for actual URLs.

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