upload_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses several non-obvious behaviors: the server generates notation and annotations from structured fields, a failed image upload still results in recipe creation with an image_warning in the response, and the tool must not actually upload until the user explicitly approves. This level of transparency goes beyond basic mutation warnings and gives the agent important operational details.

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 structured with a clear opening statement followed by bullet points for rules. Although lengthy, every sentence conveys critical usage information and earns its place. The structure improves scannability, and the content is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is not wasteful or repetitive.

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?

The description is remarkably complete for a complex upload tool. It covers parameter semantics, validation constraints, behavioral edge cases (image failure, approval requirement), and the overall workflow. An output schema exists, so the absence of return value details is acceptable. Given the lack of annotations, the description fully compensates and leaves few unanswered questions about how the tool behaves.

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%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains the semantics of the most complex parameters: time_seconds, temperature (range and varoma), speed (values and half-steps), reverse, image_url/image_base64 (with size/format constraints), and ingredients (separate quantity, unit, name). It also explains structural rules for step text and ingredient quantities, covering nearly all non-obvious fields. The only minor gap is the 'hints' parameter, but overall it compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Laedt ein Custom-Rezept fuer den Thermomix nach Cookidoo hoch' (uploads a custom recipe for Thermomix to Cookidoo). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_custom_recipes or set_recipe_image. The rest of the description elaborates on the exact scope and rules, leaving no ambiguity.

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 extensive guidelines on how to construct the recipe correctly: specific rules for step text, temperature/speed fields, ingredient quantities, image constraints, and the requirement to show the recipe to the user before uploading. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context makes it clear that this is the upload path for custom recipes. A clear, context-rich guideline without explicit exclusions.

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