Duplicate recipe

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, indicating non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'leaving the original untouched', which confirms but does not significantly extend beyond the annotation. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., what happens if name exists, required permissions, rate limits) are disclosed. The description adds minimal value beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Creates a copy of a recipe'), and every word earns its place. No redundancy or filler. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and clear behavior, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It does not mention the return value (likely the duplicated recipe object), but agents can infer this from the tool's name and common patterns. The missing return info is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for this low-complexity 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%—both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Mealie appends a counter when omitted' for name, 'Recipe slug or recipe UUID' for recipe). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3 with full coverage.

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 ('creates a copy of a recipe') and a clear resource ('recipe'), with the added context of 'leaving the original untouched'. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_recipe (which creates from scratch) and update_recipe (which modifies). The phrase 'useful as a starting point for a variation' reinforces the purpose.

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 mentions when to use it ('useful as a starting point for a variation'), giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'for a completely new recipe, use create_recipe'). The guidance is good but lacks exclusionary criteria.

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