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

Substantial disclosure beyond annotations: requires a claimed profile handle and cover, mints the slug, is capped per account, screens text once with a named refusal reason, retains the private copy either way, taken-down pages stop answering, and spends no credits. Annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false) align with the described take-down and slug-minting side effects, and the description adds the operational constraints the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence carries distinct signal (consent, prerequisites, slug, cap, screening, private-copy retention, credits). It is dense and readable, though the single run-on paragraph could be broken for faster scanning.

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?

For a 2-param mutation with an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies everything needed: consent guidance, prerequisite state, side effects, quota/screening behavior, reversibility, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the boolean toggle semantics of 'published' (true publishes, false takes down) and implies ownership on 'recipe_id' via 'a recipe you own'. It still does not state the recipe_id type/format (uuid) or default, leaving a small gap.

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+resource with clear scope: put a recipe you own on the public wall under your byline, or take it down via published: false. This cleanly distinguishes the toggle action from generic create/update. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many recipe siblings (create_recipe, update_recipe, submit_recipe, remix_recipe), so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a concrete when/when-not: 'Ask before publishing on someone's behalf' establishes a consent prerequisite. The published: false branch tells the agent how to invoke the inverse operation. However, no alternative tools are named, so the agent must infer routing against siblings like submit_recipe on its own.

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