Contribute a saved recipe

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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is consent-gated, personal/imported recipes carry an attestation requirement, and 'privacy/safety review can keep content private' tells the agent the contribution is not guaranteed to publish. It does not say what the call returns or whether review is synchronous, so it is short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consent prerequisite, so the most important gating information is not buried. The closing privacy-review sentence is slightly soft in wording but does carry actionable meaning, so there is little waste.

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 4-parameter, consent-gated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky parts an agent needs: the disclosure/permission precondition, the attestation requirement, and the possibility that review keeps content private. The only notable gap is the unexplained meal_request_id and the absence of any indication of what the call produces (e.g., a pending contribution).

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It effectively explains the semantics behind origin ('personal/imported'), permission_attested ('affirm their right to share'), and consent_version ('disclosure and explicit permission'), but never addresses meal_request_id, which is a required parameter with a UUID pattern. Partial compensation for a full coverage gap lands at the minimum-viable baseline.

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+resource+scope: 'Offer one owned recipe for community reuse,' which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_recipe_contribution, prepare_withdraw_recipe_contribution, and prepare_set_recipe_sharing (a settings toggle). It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, but the 'one owned recipe' scope is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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 a clear precondition chain: show the disclosure, obtain explicit permission, and for personal/imported origins require the user to affirm their right to share, with the explicit rule 'never infer this.' No alternative tools are named, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison, but the context for invoking it is unambiguous.

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