upload_custom_recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It communicates that this is a mutating operation (creates a recipe) and that input must be pre-validated via generate_recipe_structure. However, it doesn't disclose outcomes like whether an existing recipe with the same name gets overwritten, what the success response looks like, or whether a Cookidoo connection/authentication must be active (there's a 'connect_to_cookidoo' sibling suggesting auth is separate).

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds the workflow guidance. It wastes no words, though it could arguably be even tighter. Clear two-paragraph structure: what it does, then how to use it.

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 tool has an output schema, which likely describes the returned recipe/confirmation, so return values need not be explained. Complexity is moderate: it's a create operation requiring pre-validated input, and the description covers the prerequisite flow. However, it doesn't address auth requirements (connect_to_cookidoo sibling suggests this matters) or failure modes for invalid JSON, leaving some gap.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds value by explaining that recipe_json must be the output of generate_recipe_structure (tying it to the validation workflow) and that dry_run validates without persisting. This exceeds what a bare schema provides, though it doesn't detail the JSON structure.

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 clearly states the tool uploads a custom recipe to a Cookidoo account and creates a brand new recipe from scratch. It distinguishes itself from 'copy_recipe_to_custom' (which copies an existing recipe) by emphasizing 'from scratch'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 'update_custom_recipe_steps' or 'update_custom_recipe_ingredients', though 'creates brand new' implies creation as opposed to modification.

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 description provides clear usage guidance: use 'generate_recipe_structure' first to validate data, then pass the resulting JSON. It also mentions the dry_run param implicitly by noting validation. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when updating an existing recipe), but the sequential workflow guidance is strong and practical.

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