Save network as a vault recipe

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), which are consistent with the description's claim of saving a network as a recipe note. The description adds context about the file location and prerequisite. It could mention error handling (e.g., missing vault path) but overall behavior is clear.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, no unnecessary words. The first sentence captures the core functionality, and the second adds sibling context and a prerequisite. Every sentence 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's 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description covers the main purpose and behavior adequately. It explains the vault storage and sibling tools. However, it lacks details on what happens when overwrite is false and the recipe exists, or the exact structure of the recipe note. It is mostly complete for a save tool but could be improved.

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 57%, with id, comp_path, and overwrite having descriptions; tags, description, and difficulty lack detail. The description mentions that the recipe is saved as Recipes/<id>.md, which clarifies the purpose of id and comp_path, but does not elaborate on other parameters. It adds marginal value over the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing descriptions.

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 it captures a COMP's network (nodes, parameters, wiring, text/script DAT bodies) as a reusable recipe note in the Obsidian vault. It uses a specific verb (Capture) and resource (COMP network), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_recipes and apply_recipe by mentioning that these tools will see the saved recipe.

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 mentions that list_recipes/apply_recipe will see the recipe alongside built-in ones, providing implicit context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also includes a prerequisite (TDMCP_VAULT_PATH). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or what conditions might make other tools more appropriate.

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