upload_custom_recipe_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys meaningful behavioral detail: format conversion to JPEG, the signed customer-recipe flow, isImageOwnedByUser enabling, and the 10 MB size cap. This gives the agent actionable expectations about side effects (ownership flag) and constraints beyond what a schema could express. It doesn't detail reversible behavior but covers the key operational traits.

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 three compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first line. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, then format/size behavior, then attachment specifics. No filler or redundancy.

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 the output schema exists and inputs are fully covered, the description covers the key operational concerns: format conversion, upload mechanism, ownership flag, and size cap. It's a complete treatment for a file-upload tool of this complexity, though it could name the sibling upload_custom_recipe for disambiguation in the guidelines.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description adds context about the file (converted to JPEG) and the size limit, supplementing image_path meaning, and clarifies that dry_run previews without sending requests. With full schema coverage and a dry_run param built into the schema, the description's marginal value is modest but present.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Upload a local image and attach it to a custom Cookidoo recipe.' It immediately clarifies the scope (local file, custom recipe) and distinguishes from siblings like upload_custom_recipe (which handles the recipe itself, not its image). The required parameters (recipe_id, image_path) map cleanly to the stated action.

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 implicitly scopes usage to uploading/attaching images to custom recipes, which separates it from recipe creation (upload_custom_recipe) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. It mentions acceptance limits (10 MB) and format conversion, offering some practical usage context, but lacks explicit when-not-conditions or named alternatives.

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