Apply recipe

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive and open-world. The description confirms creation of new entities (baseCOMP, nodes) and adds behavioral details like auto-layout, verification, and preview. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra context beyond the structured fields.

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 a single paragraph that is efficient but could be slightly more structured. It front-loads the primary action and includes necessary details without excess.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a tool with two parameters and no output schema. It explains return values (summary, JSON block), error handling, and the full workflow. No missing critical information.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, but the description adds meaning: id must come from list_recipes, parent_path is a COMP. This clarifies constraints and usage beyond raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: instantiating a built-in recipe by ID inside a COMP. It details the steps (create baseCOMP, add/wire nodes, expose controls, auto-layout, verify, preview) and distinguishes from siblings like list_recipes and other recipe-related tools.

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 implies when to use: when you have a recipe ID and want to build a ready-made network. It mentions error handling for unknown IDs, guiding appropriate usage. It could explicitly mention alternatives like scaffold_recipe_from_network or import_recipe_bundle, but the context is sufficient.

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