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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful traits beyond structured data — the 1-credit cost and the 6-step maximum — but says nothing about authentication, whether saving a duplicate name overwrites or errors, or what validation failures look like.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the format spec, a concrete example, and routing to siblings. The dense single paragraph contains no filler; each sentence delivers invocation-relevant information.

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 format, limits, cost, and alternatives well. It omits the return value (e.g. a recipe id) and overwrite/validation behavior, which an agent would want before calling.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the step object shape {tool, args, as?}, the {{input.x}} and {{steps.<as>.<field>}} templating syntax, and the s1/s2 default naming for steps lacking 'as'. This is essential calling knowledge absent from the schema.

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 and resource ('Save a reusable multi-step workflow that chains this server's tools') and immediately positions it against related siblings, making it distinguishable from recipe_run and recipe_publish without opening any schema.

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 explicitly names the two downstream alternatives and their purpose ('Run it later with recipe_run, or publish it with recipe_publish'), giving clear usage context. It stops short of stating when NOT to save a recipe, so it lacks the exclusion half of a full 5.

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