add_recipe

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

The description discloses that ingredients are parsed into structured amounts for shopping-list math, and that setting 'course' affects planning. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not mention whether the operation is safe, reversible, or has any side effects beyond saving. This is adequate for a simple creation 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 concise at about four lines, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though 'the everyday way to seed it' is slightly informal but acceptable. No unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description should hint at the return value or success confirmation. It only says 'Save one recipe to your library' without mentioning what the agent should expect after invocation. Error conditions are also absent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains two critical parameters: 'ingredients' (format and parsing) and 'course' (influence on planning). It also mentions 'servings' default. However, other parameters like 'tags', 'cuisine', 'directions', and 'total_time_min' receive no explanation.

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 tool's verb and resource: 'Save one recipe to your library'. It distinguishes from siblings by implying this is for adding a single recipe ('the everyday way to seed it'), while a sibling named 'add_recipes' likely handles bulk addition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 says 'No file or special format needed: paste or describe a recipe', suggesting it is for simple, manual input. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'add_recipes' (which may handle bulk imports). No when-not scenarios are mentioned.

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