Save your own recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true; the description adds genuinely new context about where the recipe lives and that it does not touch the cart or place an order, which reassures an agent about side effects. It does not mention what happens on duplicate names or whether repeated calls create duplicates (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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?

Three tight sentences ordered purpose → prerequisite → side effects, with no filler. Each sentence adds information the schema or annotations do not already provide.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input sourcing, quantity semantics and side-effect boundaries. Remaining gaps (meaning of portions, error behavior on duplicates, what is returned) are minor but real.

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 only 33%, so the description carries real weight: it explains that product_id comes from search_products and that quantity means 'number of packages of that product', covering the undocumented nested fields. The 'portions' parameter remains unexplained beyond its schema bounds, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a recipe of the user's own in the Picnic app') and grounds it in the app's own term 'Eigenes Rezept'. It clearly distinguishes itself from search_recipes/get_recipe/delete_recipe and, via 'Does not touch the cart or place an order', from add_recipe_to_cart and add_to_cart.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Find each ingredient with search_products first and pass its id', naming the sibling tool to use beforehand. It also rules out cart/order effects, implicitly steering agents to add_recipe_to_cart for that purpose, though it never names that alternative directly.

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