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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, non-read-only), the description adds the confirmation workflow and the 'works once per recipe' constraint, which an agent needs to avoid retry loops. It stops short of saying what happens to the recipe after hand-back (removed from the kitchen? returned to Strega?), which is the one behavioral detail left implicit.

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?

Three tight sentences: action and target set first, then the negative default, then the precondition and the once-per-recipe limit. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema, this covers the trigger, the safe default, confirmation, and the repeat-call limit. The only gap is the post-condition of the hand-back, which an agent might want before confirming with the cook.

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?

There is one required parameter, `slug`, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It partially does by pointing at `get_my_kitchen newly_assigned` as the source of the target recipes, implying where the slug comes from, but it never says the parameter is a recipe slug or what format it takes.

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?

States a specific verb ('hand back') and resource (a recipe added by the Strega team), and pins the target set to `get_my_kitchen newly_assigned`, which distinguishes it from delete_recipe and other recipe tools. An agent can identify both the action and the exact subset of recipes it applies to.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the cook says "that one isn't mine"'), an explicit default to not act ('Keeping it is the default and needs nothing'), and a prerequisite ('Confirm with the cook first'). This is a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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