Create recipe

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (false) and not destructive (false), so the description need only add behavioral context. It accurately signals that this is a creation operation (implied mutation) and hints at the need for unique names via the name parameter description. No contradiction with annotations.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value. It could briefly mention the required 'name' field, but overall it is efficiently concise.

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 of 13 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description is somewhat thin. However, the key sibling guidance and the purpose clarity are present. The schema's property descriptions fill many gaps. A more complete description might mention that all fields are optional except name, but the schema already makes that clear. This is solid for a create 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 46%, relatively low, so the description should compensate but does not. The body description adds no details beyond 'from the given fields'. However, several schema property descriptions (e.g., on name, ingredients, tags) provide useful semantics that elevate the overall parameter understanding. Since the description itself adds no extra meaning, it scores at baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Creates a recipe from the given fields') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool import_recipe_from_url, which is the primary source of confusion. It clearly states when to use the alternative.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use import_recipe_from_url instead when the source is a website, which provides clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when to use other related tools like duplicate_recipe or suggest_recipes, but the contrast with the sibling is sufficient for the main decision point.

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