scale_recipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and largely meets it: it discloses the copy-and-swap semantics, notes that label settings and tags are carried forward, and warns that endpoint parameter names are unpublished. It does not cover response or error behavior, but the core mutation intent 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 compact and front-loaded: operation, endpoint, behavioral intent, and scale-factor guidance in three short sentences. Every sentence earns its place, and no filler is present.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is strong: it covers the copy-and-swap scenario, the optional scale factor, and the unpublished-fields risk with a practical workaround. The main remaining gap is the meaning of as_json and the absence of return-value guidance.

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?

The fields object is given a concrete example with name and scale_factor, plus a practical caveat about unpublished parameter names, adding real value beyond the schema. recipe_id is adequately described in the schema, but as_json remains unexplained in both the description and the 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 names a concrete action ('Copy (and optionally scale) an existing recipe') and a specific resource, and adds meaningful context by explaining that cloning a configured template carries label settings and tags forward. This clearly distinguishes it from create, update, and bulk-clone sibling 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 identifies the intended use case: cloning a configured template and then replacing one ingredient afterward, and it clarifies that a scale factor of 1 produces a straight copy. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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