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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key effects—consuming oldest required harvests, earning recipe reward plus rarity bonus, and no spend or allowance reset—but omits failure conditions, idempotency behavior for requestId, and whether cooking can fail or partially consume harvests.

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 two tight sentences with the core action and effects front-loaded. It is dense but efficient, with no obvious filler, though terms like "rarity bonus" and "allowance reset" assume game-specific context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and some side effects. It remains incomplete regarding valid recipeIndex discovery, failure modes, idempotency expectations, and what the agent should expect on success.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It only restates that requestId is a required UUID and that recipeIndex identifies the recipe; it does not explain the 0–10 range, how to obtain a valid recipeIndex (e.g., via kitchen_recipes), or requestId's idempotency role.

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 ("Cook") and resource ("recipeIndex") and clarifies the input source ("oldest required garden harvests"). It implicitly distinguishes itself from harvest and kitchen_recipes, but does not explicitly name those siblings for disambiguation.

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 phrase "using your oldest required garden harvests" implies a prerequisite and usage context, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus kitchen_recipes or harvest, nor does it state exclusions or alternatives.

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