Import recipe from URL

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

Annotations already convey destructiveness (destructiveHint=true) and write semantics (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it fetches from the network (openWorldHint), validates content, and is subject to 'host-allowlisted, size-capped' limits. It does not mention overwrite behavior or failure modes, but the added constraints are valuable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the operation, constraints, and expected input format with zero redundant words. Every element ('fetch', 'validate', 'import', 'host-allowlisted', 'size-capped') earns its place.

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's relative simplicity, the description combined with full schema coverage and annotations is substantial. It clarifies the URL source, destination directory, and constraints, and the annotations cover destructive/write behavior. The lack of an output schema and absence of return-value description are minor gaps for a straightforward import tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning (e.g., 'host-allowlisted' relates to url, 'size-capped' relates to max_bytes), but it does not introduce new syntax or deepen parameter understanding beyond the schema's per-parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch, validate, and import') with a clear resource ('recipe or recipe-bundle JSON from an HTTPS URL') and destination ('local recipes directory'). It also adds distinguishing constraints ('host-allowlisted, size-capped') that differentiate it from sibling tools like 'import_recipe_bundle'.

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 clearly implies the use case (importing recipe JSON from a remote HTTPS URL) and notes important constraints (host allowlist, size cap). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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