import_recipes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the two parameters and their usage but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing recipes, handles duplicates, or any destructive behavior). The description is moderately transparent but lacks details on the overall operation's impact.

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 with four sentences, front-loading the purpose and then detailing parameter usage. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers usage and parameter semantics. However, it does not mention what happens after import (e.g., error handling, return values), leaving some context incomplete for a comprehensive understanding.

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 fully compensates by explaining the two parameters: csv_path for reading a server file, csv_content for pasting CSV text from a remote client. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 it imports many recipes from a Plan to Eat CSV export, specifying it as an optional bulk shortcut. It distinguishes itself from the sibling add_recipe by noting that most users seed with add_recipe instead, making the purpose specific and distinct.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it contrasts with add_recipe for single entries and advises using add_recipe instead for most users. It also explains the two methods of providing CSV data (server file vs. direct content), giving clear context for each scenario.

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