scf_generate_system_recipes

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

Without annotations, the description effectively discloses that this is a write operation, is asynchronous, returns HTTP 202, and requires editor+ role. These details go beyond basic purpose and help the agent understand behavior.

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 concise (one sentence plus parenthetical) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part adds value, though the parenthetical could be slightly more integrated.

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?

Given the async nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: initiation, role, async behavior, and polling. It does not detail response format, but that is acceptable without an output schema.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptive explanations (e.g., 'obtain from scf_list_organizations'). The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself is sufficient.

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 action ('Queue AI generation') and resource ('evidence-collection recipes for a system'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like scf_get_system_recipes (retrieval) and scf_get_recipe_generation_status (polling) by focusing on initiating 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?

The description specifies the required role ('editor+'), async nature, and next step ('Poll scf_get_recipe_generation_status for progress'). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the context and sibling tools provide sufficient guidance.

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