cyberchef_recipe_import

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a non-destructive, state-changing operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the fact that the recipe can come from external formats, but it does not disclose whether the import creates a new recipe, overwrites an existing one, or validates input first.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it concise and easy to scan. It is slightly too terse to carry meaningful selection guidance, but structurally it is efficient.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully descriptive schema and enum, the minimal description plus schema is enough for an agent to construct a valid call. However, the lack of mention of the import's effect or return value keeps it at only a minimum-viable level, especially with no output schema.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions and an enum for format, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'various formats' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names the action ('Import') and the target resource ('a recipe'), and 'from various formats' conveys the operation's scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like recipe_create or recipe_export, so it is clear but not sharply distinguished.

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 guidance about when to choose import over alternatives such as recipe_create, recipe_export, or recipe_validate. 'From various formats' implies existing serialized recipe data, but the description never states exclusions or when to use a different sibling tool.

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