upload_thermomix_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uploads to Cookidoo, handles image upload to Cloudinary, requires credentials and subscription, and returns recipe_id and guided_buttons. This provides good behavioral insight beyond the input schema.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides necessary details. It is concise for the complexity, with each sentence adding value (structure of recipe, mode guidelines, image handling, requirements). No redundancies.

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 two parameters, an output schema (exists), and sibling tools, the description covers what the tool does, how to use the parameters, prerequisites (env vars, subscription), and response fields. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings but is otherwise complete.

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 add meaning. It does so by explaining the 'recipe' parameter as structured JSON (name, ingredients, steps with optional mode, etc.) and 'image_url' as a photo from fetch_recipe. This adds significant context beyond the generic object and string schema.

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 tool uploads a recipe to Cookidoo 'Meine Kreationen' and enables Guided Cooking on TM7. The verb 'Lädt... hoch' is specific, and the resource is identified. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'save_thermomix_recipe', which could be similar.

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 context: requires COOKIDOO_EMAIL/COOKIDOO_PASSWORD in .env and an active subscription. It implies when to use (uploading structured recipes), but does not give explicit when-not or alternatives (e.g., vs save_thermomix_recipe).

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