create_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, whether the recipe is validated, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a recipe ID). It only gives a minimal statement of the action, which is not sufficient for a mutating 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 short (two sentences) and packs useful parameter details, but the first sentence 'Create a recipe' is a tautology that wastes space. The second sentence is a run-on that could be better structured with clearer separation of parameter definitions.

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 create operation with no output schema and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It explains some parameter semantics but lacks information about return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or post-creation behavior. The tool has four required parameters, and one (name) is completely undocumented in the description.

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 description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema for three of the four required parameters: code is described as 'the code tree,' config as 'connection config array,' and folder_id as 'a string.' This helps the agent understand what values to provide. However, the required 'name' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap.

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 'Create a recipe,' which is a clear verb+resource pair, but it essentially restates the tool name without adding extra context about what a recipe is or how this creation differs from other 'create' tools in the list (e.g., create_mcp_server, create_api_collection). The additional parameter hints (code, config, folder_id) provide some implicit scope but do not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_recipe, copy_recipe, or scaffold_recipe. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing folder, nor any indication of when creation is appropriate. The usage is implied only by the tool's name.

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