Import recipe from HTML or JSON

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate these safe mutation traits. The description adds behavioral context about the tool's direct data submission approach versus fetching, which is valuable for an AI agent. A 4 is justified as it clearly explains the key behavioral difference without needing to over-explain the obviously non-destructive nature.

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 long, front-loading the core action in the first sentence and usage context in the second. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no enums, no output schema) and the presence of a complete schema description, the description fully covers when and how to use the tool. It distinguishes from siblings and provides clear guidance, leaving no gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema covers all 1 parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'page HTML' and 'schema.org Recipe JSON document' as valid inputs, which aligns with the schema description but adds context about the purpose (direct submission). It does not provide additional format or syntax details beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'creates' and the resource 'recipe', specifies the two input formats (HTML or schema.org JSON), and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools like import_recipe_from_url by noting it works when Mealie cannot fetch or a login is needed. This strongly distinguishes it from similar tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for pages requiring a login or when import_recipe_from_url fails. It also indicates an alternative ('without Mealie fetching anything'), making the usage context clear and actionable.

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