apply_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. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'NOT fully transactional in Phase 5; returns progress and failed_at/error if a step fails.' This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent handle partial failures. Missing details on idempotency or side effects prevent a 5.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the action and resource, then usage context, then a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no waste. Ideal conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description mentions return values ('progress and failed_at/error'), which is sufficient. It covers purpose, usage, and a behavioral caveat. Missing explicit return structure details, but overall complete for a tool of this 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds 'with optional overrides' but this is already implied by the schema's optional field. No additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Apply an embedded recipe by id with optional overrides'. It specifies the resource (recipe) and the context ('Use after list_recipes when the user asks for a genre pattern, rack, mix chain, or arrangement scaffold'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_recipes.

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 explicitly states when to use ('Use after list_recipes when the user asks for...') but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond list_recipes. The context is clear and helpful, earning a 4.

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