create_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('Create') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a recipe ID). It mentions required/optional fields but lacks context on constraints or side effects.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently lists key parameters in a structured way. However, it could be slightly more organized (e.g., separating required and optional lists clearly) and includes some redundancy (e.g., 'steps[{instruction, ingredients[{food, amount, unit?}]}]' is somewhat nested in text).

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 complexity (12 parameters, nested objects in schema, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a creation tool with many parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially with siblings like 'update_recipe' that might share parameters.

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?

The description adds some value by specifying required vs. optional parameters and clarifying nested structure (steps with instruction and ingredients). However, with 0% schema description coverage and 12 total parameters, it only covers 5 parameters explicitly (name, steps, description, servings, working_time, waiting_time, keywords) and misses others like 'servings_text', 'source_url', 'internal', 'show_ingredient_overview', and 'private'. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 the action ('Create recipe') and identifies the core resource being created. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_recipe' or 'update_recipe' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'auto_meal_plan' or 'create_meal_plan' which might involve recipe creation indirectly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_meal_plan' or 'update_recipe'. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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