optimize_recipe_macros

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Analyzes ... and suggests' strongly implies a non-mutating advisory operation, which is useful, and it discloses the domain constraint it optimizes against (2.5g Leucine MPS). However, it says nothing about whether it returns a revised ingredient list vs. prose suggestions, or any rate/cost/compute considerations.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the examples safely quarantined in a parenthetical, so the reader gets the purpose before the elaboration. No filler sentences, though the example list is longer than strictly needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is reasonably omitted, and the domain goal is well conveyed. The gap is on the input side: four undocumented parameters including the required ingredients array, plus no guidance on how this relates to formulate_recipe, leave the definition only minimally complete.

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 four parameters (ingredients, servings, max_carbs_g, target_protein_g), so the description must compensate. 'Hit target macros' loosely gestures at target_protein_g and max_carbs_g, but servings and especially the required ingredients structure are never addressed, leaving the required-parameter format undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb pair (analyzes/suggests) and resource (recipe macros) with concrete examples of the adjustments offered (lupin/almond flour, hemp seeds, paneer, nutritional yeast) and the concrete goal (2.5g Leucine MPS threshold). It is clearly an optimizer over an existing recipe, which implicitly separates it from formulate_recipe, but it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it applies when it has a recipe and macro targets to hit. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of formulate_recipe or lookup_food as alternatives, which matters in a toolset that contains both a recipe formulator and food lookups.

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