set_recipe_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses server-side download behavior for URLs, Cookidoo's 80x80 pixel minimum rejection, and recommends resizing to ~800px/quality 70 to keep requests small. This goes beyond basic mutation semantics and adds operational context.

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 dense and well-structured, with a lead sentence and clear parameter bullet points. All sentences add value, though the resizing instructions are slightly verbose. It remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 is a simple single-attribute mutation, the description covers the essential parameter semantics, constraints, and server behavior. It does not mention error cases or idempotency, but an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Overall, sufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates. It explains image_url (https, JPEG/PNG, ≤10MB, server downloads) and image_base64 (Base64, optional prefix, resizing advice), and clarifies the 'exactly one' constraint that the schema alone does not enforce.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Setzt oder ersetzt das Foto eines eigenen Custom-Rezepts' (sets or replaces a custom recipe's photo). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_recipe or get_custom_recipe.

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 usage constraints (exactly one image source, format/size limits) but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like upload_recipe. Context is clear but alternatives are not mentioned.

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