dl_authoring_defaults

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's second sentence talks about what 'recipe_contract' exposes rather than what this tool does or returns, which adds confusion rather than behavioral context.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core action, which is good. However, the second sentence introduces an entity ('recipe_contract') that is neither this tool nor a sibling, spending a full sentence on material the agent cannot act on.

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?

With no output schema and four fully undocumented parameters, the description should explain what the resolved presentation looks like and what each input contributes. Instead it describes a different surface ('recipe_contract'), leaving the agent unable to invoke this tool correctly.

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% across four parameters (family, explicit, reference, project_root), so the description carries the full burden and fails to name or explain any of them. 'One family' faintly gestures at the family parameter, but 'explicit', 'reference' and 'project_root' remain entirely opaque.

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 gives a verb ('resolve') and a resource ('effective presentation') scoped to 'one family', but 'effective presentation' is domain jargon whose meaning an agent cannot pin down. It never distinguishes this from closely-named siblings like dl_compile_recipe or dl_object_get, so the agent must guess which one produces a resolved presentation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance whatsoever: no preconditions, no mention of an alternative tool, and no indication of when a caller should reach for this versus dl_compile_recipe or dl_object_get. The conditional phrase 'For a registered recipe' hints at a precondition but never states what to do when the recipe is not registered.

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