recode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the default-for-unlisted-values and missing-value-preservation behaviors. However, these largely restate schema field descriptions, and it omits key behavioral facts like whether the file is modified in place, what save/attach do to state, and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the optional default/missing behaviors follow logically. No wasted words.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core recoding semantics but leaves the save/attach/sheet behavior and in-place mutation questions unaddressed. It is minimally adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description reinforces the map/default/missing interplay (keys compared as strings, unlisted vs missing handling) but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 (recode) and resource (values of one variable) plus the mapping mechanism, so an agent immediately understands the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like set_formula, value_labels, or set_measurement, which also transform variable values.

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 description explains the mechanics of recoding but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With siblings such as value_labels and set_formula that could be confused for value transformation, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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