Draft recipe from operator chain

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

The description confirms the read-only nature already indicated by annotations (readOnlyHint=true) and adds the context that no files are written and the TD bridge is not touched. It does not disclose error behavior or edge cases, but the annotations cover the primary safety traits.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the key aspect (read-only) and conveys the core action with no redundant text. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 9 parameters and a defined output schema, the description adequately covers the primary function and safety guarantees. However, it does not explain the RecipeSchema draft concept or how optional parameters affect the output, leaving some context missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 78%, the schema already explains most parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall purpose, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 converts an ordered TouchDesigner operator chain into a RecipeSchema draft, specifying it is read-only and does not write files or touch the TD bridge. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like draft_recipe_from_technique or scaffold_recipe_from_network, which share similar outputs.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or provide context for selection among sibling tools that also produce RecipeSchema drafts from different inputs.

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