add_recipe

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint, so the description carries most of the burden, and it delivers: it discloses the destructive overwrite-by-name behavior (consistent with idempotency), the fallback defaults for searchTerms and category, and the fields returned in the confirmation. It does not mention auth or error behavior, but the mutation semantics are well surfaced.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage before the defaults tip and return summary. The phrase 'reducing input friction' is mildly editorial but the rest is dense and waste-free.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by summarizing the confirmation payload. Combined with the overwrite warning and default behavior, an agent has enough to call this 5-required-parameter mutation correctly, though nothing is said about failure modes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the searchTerms and category defaults already documented in the schema, and does not add format or validation meaning for required fields like complexity, cuisineType, or the ingredient quantity strings.

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 states a specific verb pair (add/update) and resource (recipe), then adds the domain purpose (meal planning and deal scoring). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_recipes, remove_recipe, and score_recipes without needing to open any schema.

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 explicit 'USE WHEN: saving a new recipe or updating an existing one' gives a clear trigger condition, and the overwrite note clarifies that there is no separate update tool to switch to. No alternatives or exclusions are named, but the sibling set contains no competing add/update recipe tool, so guidance is effectively complete.

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