add_favorite_recipe

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

Annotations already specify idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation that can be safely retried. The description adds the auth prerequisite but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it replaces an existing favorite if already present, or any error implications. With annotations covering the core safety profile, the description provides some additional context but remains incomplete for a mutation 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 very concise at two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the primary purpose. It earns a high score for being efficient, though it could add more behavioral detail without becoming verbose.

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 1 parameter, no output schema, and annotations cover idempotency and mutability. The description covers purpose and auth prerequisite but omits details like return value, idempotent behavior confirmation (e.g., duplicate insert handling), or whether the tool operates on the authenticated user's favorites. For a simple mutation tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% (1 parameter documented). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'Recipe ID to add to favorites', which already states the parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation fully.

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 action ('Add'), the resource ('recipe to favorite'), and the target ('user's favorites'). It suffers slightly because the name already conveys most of this, but it does add context about the user scope.

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 specifies a prerequisite ('Requires profile auth (check_auth_status first)'), which provides clear when-to-use guidance for authentication. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_favorite_recipes' or 'delete_favorite_recipe', missing an opportunity to clarify that it is for adding only.

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