bulk_create_subrecipes

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

There are no annotations, so the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the dry-run default, states that nothing is touched in dry-run mode, explains the exact conditions required to execute, and mentions the per-recipe success/failure report with new ingredient_ids. This is unusually complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Three compact sentences carry all essential information: what the tool does, the safe default, the exact execution condition, and the return value. The most important safety information is front-loaded, and 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?

For a bulk mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, safety, execution conditions, and the returned report format sufficiently. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting the alternative single-item path, but it already gives an agent enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful interaction semantics beyond the schema: dry_run defaults to true, and both dry_run:false and confirm:true are required together to execute. It also connects 'sequentially' to the delay_ms parameter concept, adding value over the 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 action: 'Flag many recipes as subrecipes, sequentially.' It identifies the resource (many recipes) and the bulk nature, distinguishing it from the singular create_subrecipe sibling by implication, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or clarify the naming mismatch between 'create' and 'flag'.

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 gives concrete execution guidance: dry_run defaults true, and execution requires both dry_run:false and confirm:true. This tells the agent exactly when and how to safely invoke the tool, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over create_subrecipe for single-recipe cases.

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