Generate Recipe Structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that this is a generation/validation step (not an upload) and provides detailed Thermomix settings notation that explains how step text is interpreted. It doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects, but the 'ready for upload' framing implies it. Error handling or validation failure behavior is not described.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then a clear, necessary section on Thermomix settings notation. It is not overly verbose, and each example earns its place. The structure could be slightly tightened (e.g., the mode validation sentence could be integrated better), but overall it is efficient.

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 8 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, the description covers the main complexity: correct syntax for steps and the prerequisite of checking modes. It doesn't explain validation error behavior or detail the output structure, but the output schema fills that gap. It is nearly complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning for the 'steps' parameter by explaining the exact Cookidoo notation for Thermomix settings (time/speed, temperature, reverse, soft stir, Varoma). It also ties the 'device' and 'servings' parameters implicitly through context. Other parameters rely on schema descriptions, which are clear.

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 (generate and validate) and resource (recipe structure) and explicitly links it to the upload_custom_recipe tool, distinguishing this preparatory step from the actual upload. An agent can tell this tool is for structuring and validating data before upload without needing to inspect siblings.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool is used before upload_custom_recipe and that get_thermomix_modes should be called to check modes and their spelling. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or contrast with update_custom_recipe_steps, but the context is clear enough.

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