recipe

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

Annotations only signal not-read-only and open-world, but the description adds critical disclosure: payment is charged, the pipeline chains models, and specific recipes behave differently (e.g., brainrot-video requires no prompt and generates audio). This goes well beyond the annotation hints and matches them.

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 dense but every clause adds value: payment warning, recipe list with inline parameters, cost comparison, override syntax, and a doc link. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and reads as a compact reference.

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 complex, paid, multi-model tool, the description covers cost, recipe variants, parameter specifics, and model overrides. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is unnecessary. The provided info is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The schema's args description is generic ('Recipe input, e.g. { prompt, motionPrompt?, duration?, resolution? }'), but the description adds concrete per-recipe parameter shapes: image-to-video takes { prompt, motionPrompt? }, brainrot-video takes { motionPrompt?, reference_image? }, and steps can be overridden with { imageModel, videoModel }. This meaningfully enriches 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a paid multi-model RECIPE pipeline (chains models in one call).' It then enumerates concrete recipes (image-to-video, image-to-video-hd, image-to-video-audio, brainrot-video) with transformations, clearly distinguishing the tool's purpose from single-model generation.

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 strong usage context: 'PAID: settles the SUM of the steps from your wallet' warns of costs, and '3-8x cheaper than a native text-to-video model' suggests when to choose this over a native alternative. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools like generate, but the recipe list and override guidance imply appropriate scenarios.

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