save_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses two real traits: the source web page is untrusted (a security-relevant caveat) and duplicate normalized URLs are rejected. It omits what a successful save does with sensitive content, permission requirements, and the fate of supplied vs fetched fields.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core save action plus key constraints come first. Slightly terse given the tool's complexity, but every clause is informative.

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 15-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It gives no guidance on enums (sensitivity, interest_status), nested relation structures, or return/error behavior beyond the dedup rejection.

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 0% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies 'url' ('exact public source URL') and the text/note distinction; the other 13 params (tags, aliases, relations, sensitivity, interest_status, cooking times, canonical_url, etc.) get no semantic explanation in either schema or description.

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?

Names a specific verb ('save') and resource ('recipe') and states the primary input constraint (exact public source URL) plus metadata. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like save_bookmark by the 'recipe' resource, though it never explicitly says how it differs from capture or save_bookmark.

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 phrase 'Save one recipe from an exact public source URL' implies the intended use case, and the dedup note hints at preconditions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (capture, save_bookmark, update) despite many relevant siblings, leaving routing to inference.

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