mfp_create_recipe

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it creates a new custom food, computes summed per-portion nutrition, and returns a recipe food id that can be logged/edited. The annotations already cover non-read-only and non-idempotent side effects, and the description does not contradict them.

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 tight sentences front-load the core purpose and end with a practical output-use hint; the [stable] marker is compact metadata. There is no 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?

The description explains what the tool creates, how nutrition is computed, and what the return value is for, while the annotations and nested input schema cover safety and parameter requirements. It is slightly short on explicit alternative selection, but for a create-with-recipe workflow the core context is sufficient.

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 description does not name parameters directly, but 'multi-ingredient' and 'per-portion' reinforce the meaning of ingredients and portions. The nested schema carries detailed descriptions for name, ingredients, portions, and food_id, so the description's contribution on top of the schema is modest; given the reported low direct schema coverage, it only partially compensates.

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 names a specific action ('Create'), a specific resource ('multi-ingredient recipe as a custom food'), and the key behavior ('summed, per-portion nutrition'). It also tells the agent what to do with the result ('log/edit it like any food'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfp_create_meal and mfp_create_custom_food.

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 usage context is implied: a recipe is for combining multiple foods into a custom food, and returning a food id signals reusability. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over mfp_bulk_log, mfp_create_meal, or mfp_create_custom_food, nor does it state exclusions.

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