Draft recipe from technique

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces that it is read-only and does not write files or touch the TD bridge. This adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it is consistent and confirms no side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence (20 words) that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key constraints. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 10 parameters (2 required), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is adequately complete. It covers the main operation and constraints. However, it could provide more context about the strict parameter or the RecipeSchema draft format, but the schema and output schema handle those details.

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 input schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions. The description only hints at the key inputs (technique with GLSL source) but does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. With high coverage, baseline of 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 (convert), input (embedded TD technique with GLSL source), and output (RecipeSchema draft). It emphasizes the read-only nature, distinguishing it from write operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like draft_recipe_from_operator_chain, though the title and domain ('from technique') provide implicit distinction.

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 this tool (when you have a technique with GLSL source) and states a key constraint (read-only, no TD bridge touch). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools like draft_recipe_from_operator_chain or draft_recipe_from_tutorial, which are among its siblings.

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