use_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description gives useful hints (raw API responses often don't include entity name, hence entity_name param) but doesn't disclose side effects, whether it writes to a system, rate limits, auth requirements, what gets persisted/attached, or what happens on invocation—whether results are stored or merely returned. For an 'invoke' tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 compact and well-organized, with each parameter getting its own brief docstring line with concrete examples. The prose is efficient with minimal waste. It could be slightly more front-loaded about the overall action, but the docstring-style format is clean and scannable.

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?

There is an output schema present, which partially reduces the burden on the description for return-value explanation. The description explains the three parameters well and covers the invocation semantics. However, it omits behavioral context that matters for a recipe invocation: does it write/update data, is it safe/idempotent, are there prerequisites beyond a valid recipe_id? With no annotations, these gaps make the description feel incomplete for a tool that evidently has side effects worth understanding.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does well: recipe_id gets concrete examples (ats_greenhouse, ats_lever, ats_ashby), slug gets a Greenhouse board token example with the boards.greenhouse.io/<slug> URL pattern, and entity_name gets its rationale (results often lack company name) plus an example. This adds meaningful value well beyond the bare schema field titles.

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 clearly states the purpose: invoke a specific recipe by id against one entity's slug/identifier on that platform. The verb 'invoke' plus the resource (recipe by id) is specific. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings by referencing list_recipes as the source for recipe ids, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with fetch/extract.

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 references list_recipes as the source for recipe ids, giving implicit guidance on how to obtain valid recipe_id values. It provides clear contextual use (invoking recipes against a platform entity). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives, though the sibling context (fetch/extract/list_recipes) makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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